iM*^Sl^»»: 


i^^ 


CN^^^ 


^,^  \\\t   (ThcolojjiV;,/  ^, 


*■/;/ 


%, 


'if. 


PRINCETON,     N.    J. 


3,51.99 
A  5..1  Z.. 


.S>.  //■  ■;/ . 


Shfi/ 


/\7//;//vr  ...CjQIpY  .    \. 


ANGLO-AMERICAN 


Bible  Eeyisiok 


BY 

MEMBERS  OF  THE  AMERICAN  REVISION  COMMITTEE. 

/ 

Vers/OKI     or   "the   JBibie-, 


PRINTED  FOR  PRIVATE  CIRCULATION, 


NEW  YOKK: 

Nos.  42  AND  44  BIBLE  HOUSE. 
1879. 


Copyrishl,  by  the  Ameiiicak  .Sunday-School  Union,  1S70, 


PEEFATOET  NOTE. 


These  essays  on  the  various  aspects  of  the  Anglo- 
American  Bible  revision  now  going  on,  are  issued  by 
the  American  Revision  Committee  as  an  explanatory 
statement  to  the  friends  and  patrons  of  the  cause,  with 
the  distinct  understanding  that  suggestions  and  state- 
ments in  regard  to  any  particular  changes  to  be  made, 
express  only  the  individual  opinions  of  the  writer,  but 
not  the  final  conclusions  of  the  two  Committees,  who 
have  not  yet  finished  their  work. 

PHILIP  SCHAFF, 

New  York,  March,  1879.  In  behalf  of  the  Committee. 

3 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

LIST  OF  ENGLISH  KEVISERS 7-10 

LIST  OF  AMERICAN  REVISERS 11-13 

ANGLO-AMERICAN  BIBLE  REVISION: 

Introductory  Statement. 

PhiUpSchaff.    14 

The  Authorized  Version  and  English  Versions  on 
WHICH  it  is  Based. 

Chm.  P.  Krauth.    22 

The  English  Bible  as  a  Classic. 

T.  W.  Chambers.    37 

Reasons  for  a  New  Revision. 

Tlico.  D.  Woolsey.    43 

The  Current  Version  and  Present  Needs.  • 

G.  Emlen  Hare.    48 

The  Hebrew  Text  of  the  Old  Testament. 

Howard  Osgood.    53 

Hebrew  Philology  and  Biblical  Science. 

W.  Henry  Green.    60 

Helps  for  Translating  thk  Hebrew  Scriptures  at 
the  Time  the  Ancient  Version  was  made. 

George  E.  Day.    72 

iNArrURAflES   or  the  AuTHOItlZED  VERSION    OF  THH   OlI) 
Tf:STAMENT. 

Josepli  I\ickard.     80 

The  New  Testa.ment  Text. 

Ezra  Abbot.    80 
iv 


CONTENTS.  V 

PAGE 

Inaccuracies  of  the  Authorized  Version  in  Kespect  of 

Grammar  and  Exegesis. 

A.  a  Kendrick.    99 

True   Conservatis:\i  in   Eesfect  to  Changes  in  the 
English  and  Greek  Text. 

Timothy  D wight.  113 

The  Greek  Verb  in  the  New  Testament. 

Matthew  B.  Riddle.  126 

Unwarranted  Verbal  Differences  and  Agreements 
IN  THE  English  Version. 

J.  Henry  Thayer.  133 

Archaisms.;    or,  Obsolete  and   Unusual  Words  and 
Phrases  in  the  English  Bible. 

Howard  Crosby.  144 

The  Proper  Names  of  the  Bible. 

Chas.  A.  Aiken.  151 

The  Use  of  Italics  in  the  English  Bible. 

TJiomas  Chase.  1S7 

Paragraphs,  Chapters,  and  Verses  of  the  Bible. 

James  Strong.  166 

Revision  of  the  Scriptures  and  Church  Authority. 

Alfred  Lee.  170 

GENERAL  INDEX 1  f   181 


VS.  Austin  Allibone.\ 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS ......    J  I   189 

1^ 


LIST  OF  REVISERS 


I.  EE^GLISH  REVISION  COMMITTEE. 
(1)  Old  Testament  Company. 

The  Right  Rev.  Edward  Harold  Browne,  d.d.,  Bishop 

of  Winchester  (Chairman),  Farnham  Castle,  Surrey. 
The  Right  Rev.  Lord  Arthur  Charles  Hervey,  d.d., 

Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells,  Palace,  Wells,  Somerset. 
The  Right  Rev.   Alfred  Ollivant,  d.d.,  Bishop  of 

Llandaff,  Bishop's  Court,  Llandaff. 
The  Very  Rev.  Robert  Payne  Smith,  d.d..  Dean  of 

Canterbury,  Deanery,  Canterbury. 
The  Ven.  Benjamin  Harrison,  m.a.,  Archdeacon  of 

Maidstone,  Canon  of  Canterbury,  Canterbury. 
The  Rev.  William  Lindsay  Alexander,  d.d..  Professor 

of  Theology,  Congregational  Church  Hall,  Edinburgh. 
Robert  L.  Bensly,  Esq.,  Fellow  and  Hebrew  Lecturer, 

Gonville  and  Caius  College,  Cambridge. 
The  Rev.  John  BiRrell,  Professor  of  Oriental  Lan- 
guages, St.  Andrew's,  Scotland. 
Frank  Chance,  Esq.,  m.d.,  Burleigh  House,  Sydenham 

Hill,  London. 
Thomas  Chenery,  Esq.,  Reform  Club,  London,  S.  W. 
The  Rev.  T.  K.  Cheyne,  Fellow  and  Hebrew  Lecturer, 

Balliol  College,  Oxford. 
The  Rev.  A.  B.  Davidson,  d.d.,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 

Free  Church  College,  Edinburgh. 
The  Rev.  George  Douglas,  d.d..  Professor  of  Hebrew 

and  Principal  of  Free  Church  College,  Glasgow. 
S.  R.  Driver,  Esq.,  Tutor  of  Few  College,  Oxford. 
The  Rev.  C.  J.  Eliott,  Winkfield  Vicarage,  Windsor. 

7 


8  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE    REVISION. 

The  Rev.   Frederick   Field,   d.d.,   Carlton   Terrace, 

lleigliani,  Xorwich. 
The  Rev.  John  Dury  Geden,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 

Wesleyaii  College,  Didsbury,  Manchester. 
The  Rev.  Christian  D*.  Ginsburg,  ll.d.,  Wokingham, 

Berks. 
The  Rev.  Frederick  AVilliam  Gotcu,  d.d.,  Principal 

of  the  Baptist  College,  Bristol. 
The  Rev.  William  Kay,  d.d..  Great  Leghs'  Rectory, 

Chelmsford. 
The  Rev.  {Stanley  Leathes,  b.d.,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 

King's  College,  London. 
The  Rev.  John  Rawson  Lumby,  b.d.,  Fellow  of  St.  Cath- 
arine's College,  Cambridge. 
The  Rev.  John  James  Stewart  Perowne,  d.d.,  Dean 

pf  Peterborough. 
The  Rev.  A.  II.  Sayce,  Fellow  and  Tutor  .of  Queen's 

College,  Oxford. 
The  Rev.  William  Robertson   Smith,  Professor  of 

Hebrew,  Free  Church  College,  Aberdeen. 
William  Wright,  Professor  of  Arabic,  Cambridge. 
William  Aldis  Wright,  Esq.  (Secretary),  Bursar  of 

Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 

0.  T,  Company,  27. 

NoTK. — The  Enfjlish  Old  Testament  Company  has  lost,  by  death,  the 
Ri^hl  liov.  Dr.  Connop  Thiulwall,  Bisliop  of  St.  David's,  d.  27  July, 
1875;  the  Ven.  IIkn^y  .Toirx  Rose,  Archdeacon  f)f  Bedford,  d.  31  .Janu- 
an',  1873;  the  Rev.  Willi  am  Selwyn,  d.d..  Canon  of  Kly,  d.  24  April, 
1875;  the  Rev.  Dr.  Patrick  Fairijairn,  Principal  of  the  Free  Church 
College,  Glaflgow,  d.  6  Aujjust,  1874;  Professors  McGill,  d.  16  March, 
1871;  Weir,  27  .Tuly,  1870;  and  Davieh,  19  July,  1875;  and  by 
redifrnation,  the  Rii^ht  Rev.  Dr.  CnRisTOPiiER  Wordsworth,  Bishop 
of  Lin(f)ln ;  the  Rev.  John  Jp:nn,  Canon  of  Hereford,  and  tlie  Rev. 
Edward  Hayk^  PuMrrRE,  d.d..  Professor  of  N.  T.  Exegesis,  King's 
College,  London  (resigned  17  March,  1874). 


list  of  revisers.  9 

(2)  N'ew  Testament  Company. 

The  Right  Rev.  Charles  John  Ellicott,  d.d.,  Bishop 
of  Gloucester  and  Bristol  (Chairman),  Palace,  Glou- 
cester. 

The  Right  Rev.  George  Moberly,  d.c.l.,  Bishop  of 
Salisbury,  Palace,  Salisbury. 

The  Very  Rev.  Edward  Henry  Bickersteth,  d.d.. 
Prolocutor,  Dean  of  Lichfield,  Deanery,  Lichfield. 

The  Yery  Rev.  Arthur  Penrhyn  Stanley,  d.d..  Dean 
of  Westminster,  Deanery,  Westminster. 

The  Very  Rev.  Robert  Scott,  d.d..  Dean  of  Rochester, 
Deanery,  Rochester. 

The  Very  Rev.   Joseph  Williams  Blakesley,  b.d., 

•  Dean  of  Lincoln,  Deanery,  Lincoln. 

The  Most  Rev.  Richard  Chenevix  Trench,  d.d..  Arch- 
bishop of  Dublin-,  Palace,  Dublin. 

The  Right  Rev.  Charles  Wordsworth,  d.c.l..  Bishop 
of  St.  Andrew's,  Bishopshall,  St.  Andrew's. 

The  Rev.  Joseph  Anous,  d.d..  President  of  the  Baptist 
College,  Regent's  Park,  London. 

The  Rev.  David  Brown,  d.d.,  Principal  of  the  Free 
Church  College,  Aberdeen. 

The  Rev.  Fenton  John  Anthony  Hort,  d.d..  Fellow  of 
Emmanuel  College,  Cambridge. 

The  Rev.  William  Gibson  Humphry,  Vicarage,  St. 
Martin's-in-the-Field^,  London,  W.  C. 

The  Rev.  Benjamin  Hall  Kennedy,  d.d.,  Canon  of  Ely 
and  Regius  Professor  of  Greek,  The  Elms,  Cambridge. 

The  Ven.  William  Lee,  d.d.,  Archdeacon  of  Dublin, 
Dublin. 

The  Rev.  Joseph  Barber  Lightfoot,  d.d.,  Bishop  of 
Durham. 


10  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE   REVISION. 

The  Rev.  William  Milligan,  d.d.,  Professor  of  Divinity 
and  Biblical  Criticism,  Aberdeen. 

The  Rev.  William  F.  Moulton,  d.d.,  Master  of  The 
Leys  School,  Cambridge. 

The  Rev.  Samuel  Newth,  d.d..  Principal  of  New  Col- 
lege, Hampstead,  London. 

The  Ven.  Edwin  Palmer,  d.d.,  Archdeacon  of  Oxford, 
Christ  Church,  Oxford. 

The  Rev.  Alexander  Roberts,  d.d.,  Professor  of  Hu- 
manity, St.  Andrew's. 

The  Rev.  Frederick  Henry  Ambrose  Scrivener,  ll.d.. 
Prebendary,  Hendon  Vicarage,  London,  IN".  W. 

The  Rev.  George  Vance  Smith,  d.d..  Parade,  Car- 
marthen. 

The  Rev.  Charles  John  Vaughan,  d.d.,  Master  of  the 
Temple,  The  Temple,  London,  E.  C. 

The  Rev.  Brooke  Foss  Westcott,  d.d..  Canon  of  Peter- 
borough and  RegiusL  Professo>r  of  Divinity,  Trinity 
College,  Cambridge. 

The  Rev.  J.  Troutbeck  (Secretary),  Dean's  Yard, 
Westminster. 

N.  T.  Company,  25. 
Active  members  in  both  Companies,  62. 

Note. — The  English  New  TcKtament  Company  has  lost,  by  death,  the 
Right  Rev.  Dr.  Sami'EL  Wilbeii force.  Bishop  of  Win{liestcr,d.  1873; 
the  Very  Rev.  Dr.  IIkxry  Alfokd,  Dean  of  Canterbury,  tl.  1871 ;  the 
Kev.  Dr.  John  Eadie,  Professor  of  Biblical  Literature  in  the  United 
I'reHbytcrian  Church,  Glasgow,  d.  187G;  and  Mr.  Samuel  Prideaux 
TRV/iRL'l.va,  LL.i>.  (who  wa.s  prevented  by  ill  health  from  taking  any 
part  in  the  wf)rk),  d.  1875;  and  by  resignation,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Charles 
Merivale,  Dean  of  ¥Ay. 

(The  Rev.  F.  C.  Cook,  Canon  of  Exeter,  the  Rev.  Dr.  E.  B.  Pusey, 
who  were  asked  to  join  the  O.  T.  Company,  and  the  Rev.  Dr.  J.  H. 
Newman,  who  was  asked  to  join  the  N.  T.  Company,  declined  to  serve.) 


LIST    OF   REVISERS.  11 

II.  AMERICAJST  REVISION  COMMITTEE. 

GENERAL  OFFICERS  OF  THE  COMMITTEe! 
Philip  Schaff,  d.d.,  ll.d.,  President. 
George  E.  Day,  d.d.,  Secretary. 


(1)  Old  Testament  Company. 

Professor  Wm.  Henry  Green,  d.d.,  ll.d.  (Chairman), 
Theological  Seminary,  Princeton,  ]^.  J. 

Professor   George   E.  Day,  d.d.  (Secretary),   Divinity 
School  of  Yale  College,  'New  Haven,  Conn. 

Professor  Charles  A.  Aiken,  d.d..  Theological  Semi- 
nary, Princeton,  ^N".  J. 

The  Rev.  T.  W,  Chambers,  d.d..  Collegiate  Reformed 
Dutch  Church,  1^.  Y. 

Professor  Thomas  J.  Conant,  d.d.,  Brooklyn,  I^.  Y. 

Professor  John  De  Witt,  d.d.  ,  Theological  Seminary, 
N'ew  Brunswick,  I^.  J.   • 

Professor  George  Emlen  Hare,  d.d.,  ll.d..  Divinity 
School,  Philadelphia. 

Professor  Charles  P.  Krauth,  d.d.,  ll.d.,  Yice-Provost 
of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia. 

Professor  Charles  M.  Mead,  d.d.,  Theological  Semi- 
nary, Andover,  Mass. 

Professor  Howard  Osgood,  d.d..  Theological  Seminary, 
Rochester,  I*^.  Y. 

Professor  Joseph  Packard,  d.d..  Theological  Seminary, 
Alexandria,  Ya. 

Professor  Calvin  E.  Stowe,  d.d.,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Professor  James  Strong,  s.t.d..  Theological  Seminary, 
Madison,  K  J. 

Professor  C.  Y.  A.  Yan  Dyck,  d.d.,  m.d.,  Beirut,  Syria. 
(Advisory  Member  on  questions  of  Arabic). 

0.  T.  Company,  14. 

Note. — The  American  Old  Testament  Company  has  lost  by  death, 
Tayler  Lewis,  ll.d.,  Professor  Emeritus  of  Greek  and  Hebrew,  Union 
College,  Schenectady,  N.  Y.,  d.  1877. 


12  anglo-american  bible  revision. 

(2)  New  Testament  Company. 

Ex-President  T.  D.  Woolsey,  d.d.,  ll.d.  (Chairman), 
New  Haven,  Conn. 

Professor  J.  Henry  Thayer,  d.d.  (Secretary),  Theolo- 
gical Seniinarj,  Andover,  Mass. 

Professor  Ezra   Abbot,  d.d.,    ll.d..  Divinity   School, 
Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass. 

The  Rev.  J.  K.  Burr,  d.d.,  Trenton,  New  Jersey. 

President  Thomas  Chase,  ll.d.,  Haverford  College,  Pa. 

Chancellor  Howard   Crosby,   d.d.,   ll.d.,   New  York 
University,  New  York. 

Professor  Timothy  Dwight,  d.d..  Divinity   School   of 
Yale  College,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

Professor  A.  C.  Kendrick,  d.d.,  ll.d..  University  of  Ro- 
chester, Rochester,  N.  Y. 

The  Right  Rev.  Alfred  Leb,  d.d.,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese 
of  Delaware. 

Professor  Matthew  B.  Riddle,  d.d..  Theological  Semi- 
nary, Hartford,  Conn. 

Professor  Philip  Sciiaff,  d.d.,  ll.d..  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York. 

Professor  Charles  Short,  ll.d.,  Columbia  College,  N.Y. 

The  Rev.  E.  A.  Washburn,  d.d..  Calvary  Church,  N.  Y. 

N.  T.  Company,  13. 
In  both  Companies,  27. 

Note. — The  American  New  Testament  Company  has  lost  by  death, 
Jamrs  IIadlky,  ll.d.,  Professor  of  Greek,  Yale  Collej^e,  Conn,  (who 
attended  tlie  first  scasi on),  d.  1S72;  Professor  IIexry  Boynton  Smith, 
D.D.,  LL.D.,  Union  Tlieological  Seminary,  New  York  (who  attended  one 
Hcssion,  and  resigned,  from  ill  health),  d.  1877;  Professor  Horatio  P>. 
HACKFriT,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Theological  Seminary,  Rochester,  N.  Y.,  d.  187(5 ; 
and  Professor  Ciiarlics  Hodge,  d.d.  ll.d.,  Theological  Seminary, 
Princeton,  N.  .1.  (who  never  attended  the  meetings,  but  corresponded 
with  the  Oimmittee),  d.  1878;  and  by  resignation,  Rev.  G.  R.  Crooks, 
D.D.,  New  Yf)rk,  and  Rev.  W.  F.  Warrev,  d.d.,  Boston  (who  accepted 
the  original  ap|X)intmcnt,  but  found  it  impoasible  to  attend). 


THE   FINANCE   COMMITTEE.  13 

(A  number  of  Bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and  Pro- 
fessors of  sacred  learning,  who  had  been  invited  to  join  the  American 
Committee  at  its  first  organization  in  1871,  declined,  from  want  of  time, 
or  other  reasons,  but  expressed  interest  in  the  work,  and  confidence  in 
its  success.) 

MEMBERS  OF  THE  FINANCE  COMMITTEE  CO- 
OPERATING WITH  THE  AMERICAN  BIBLE 
REVISION.  COMMITTEE. 


Hon.  Nathan  Bishop,  ll.d.,  Chairman. 
Andrew  L.  Taylor,  Esq.,  Treasurer 


Kev.  William  Adams,  d.d.,  ll.d.    Eev.  Thomas  D.  Anderson,  d.d. 
A.  S.  Barnes,  Esq.  James  M.  Brown,  Esq. 

William  A.  Cauldwell,  Esq.        Hon.  Wm.  E.  Dodge. 
Rev.  H.  Dyer,  d.d.  John  Elliot,  Esq. 

Hon.  E.  L.  Fancher,  ll.d.  John  C.  Havemeyer,  Esq. 

Morris  K.  Jessup,  Esq.  Eev.  Henry  C.  Potter,  d.d.,  ll.d. 

Ho  ward  Potter,  Esq.  Elliott  F.  Shepard,  Esq. 

Rev.  Richard  S.  Storrs,  d.d.,  ll.d.  Charles  Tracy,  Esq. 
Jno.  B.  Trevor,  Esq.  Roswell  Smith,  Esq. 

Norman  White,  Esq.  F.  S.  Winston,  Esq. 

S.  D.  Warren,  Esq. 


THE  axglo-a:merica^  bible  revision. 

INTKODUCTORY    STATEMENT. 

r.Y  PHILIP  SCHAFF,  D.D.,  LL.D., 
Professor  of  Sacred  Literature,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 

I.  Origin  and  Organization. — The  Anglo- American 
Bible  Revision  movement  now  in  progress  is  the  first 
inter-national  and  inter-dmominational  effort  in  the  history 
of  the  translation  of  the  Bible.  The  present  and  the  older 
authorized  English  versions  for  public  use  in  churches 
proceeded  from  the  undivided  national  Church  of  Eng- 
land, before  the  other  evangelical  denominations  were 
organized,  and  before  the  American  people  had  an 
independent  existence. 

The  new  revision  took  its  origin,  very  properly,  in 
the  Convocation  of  Canterbury  (the  cradle  of  Anglo- 
Saxon  Christendom),  May  6,  1870,  by  the  appointment 
of  a  Committee  of  eminent  Biblical  scholars  and  digni- 
taries of  the  Church  of  England,  with  power  to  revise,  for 
public  use,  the  authorized  English  version  of  1611,  and 
to  associate  with  them  representative  Biblical  scholars 
of  other  Christian  denominations  using  that  version. 

The  English  Committee  is  divided  into  two  Compa- 
nies, one  for  the  Old  Testament  and  one  for  the  New, 
and  liolds  regular  meetings  in  the  historic  Jerusalem 
Chamber  (sometimes  in  the  Chapter  Library)  in  the 
Deanery  of  Westminster,  London. 

The  American  Committee  was  organized  in  1871,  by 
invitation,  and  with  the  approval,  of  the  British  Revisers, 
and  began  active  work  in  October,  1872.  It  is  likewise 
selected  from  diflerent  denominations,  and  divided  into 
two  Companies,  which  meet  once  a  month,  for  several 
days,  in  their  own  rooms  in  the   I>il>le  House,  at  New 

14 


INTRODUCTORY  STATEMENT.  15 

York,  but  the  American  Bible  Society  has  no  part  or 
responsibility  in  this  enterprise,  and  can  have  none 
within  the  limits  of  its  present  constitution. 

The  British  and  American  Committees  are  virtually 
one  organization,  with  the  same  principles  and  objects, 
and  in  constant  correspondence  with  each  other.  They 
do  not  intend  to  issue  two  separate  and  distinct  revisions, 
but  one  and  the  same  revision  for  both  nations. 

II.  Composition. — The  two  Committees  embrace  at 
present  79  active  members  (52  in  England  and  27  in 
America).  Besides,  the  English  Committee  lost  by 
death  and  resignation  15,  the  American  Committee  7, 
members.  Adding  these,  the  whole  number  of  scholars 
who  at  any  time  have  been  connected  with  this  work, 
amounts  to  101.  Among  these  are  rnany  of  the  best 
Biblical  scholars  and  commentators  of  the  leading 
Protestant  denominations  in  Great  Britain  and  the 
United  States.  I^ot  a  few  of  them  are  well  known  by 
their  works,  in  Europe  and  America.  We  need  only 
refer  to  the  list  at  the  beginning  of  this  volume.  The 
American  members  are  nearly  all  Professors  of  Hebrew 
or  Greek  exegesis  in  the  principal  theological  institu- 
tions of  the  Eastern  States,  and  have  been  selected  with 
regard  to  competency  and  reputation  for  Biblical  scholar- 
ship, denominational  connection,  and  local  convenience 
or  easy  reach  of  Kew  York,  where  they  meet  every 
month.  Several  distinguished  divines  in  the  far  West 
or  South,  whose  cooperation  would  have  been  very 
desirable  had,  of  necessity,  to  be  omitted ;  others,  from 
want  of  time,  or  other  reasons,  declined  to  cooperate. 

ITT.  The  object  of  this  Anglo-American  enterprise 
is  to  adapt  King  James's  version  to  the  present  state  of 
the  English  language,  without  changing  the  idiom  and 


16  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE    REVISION. 

vocabulary,  and  to  the  present  standard  of  Biblical 
scholarship,. which  has  made  very  great  advances  since 
1611,  especially  during  the  last  thirty  years,  in  textual 
criticism,  Greek  and  Hebrew  philology,  in  Biblical 
geography  and  archjx^ology. 

It  is  not  the  intention  to  furnish  a  new  version  (which 
/  is  not  needed,  and  would  not  succeed),  but  a  conservative 
revision  of  the  received  version,  so  deservedly  esteemed 
as  far  as  the  English  language  extends.  The  new  Bible 
is  to  read  like  the  old,  and  the  sacred  associations  con- 
nected with  it  are  not  to  be  disturbed ;  but  within  these 
limits  all  necessary  and  desirable,  corrections  and  im- 
provements on  which  the  best  scholars  are  agreed  will 
be  introduced:  a  good  version  is  to  be  made  better; 
a  clear  and  accurate  version  clearer  and  more  accu- 
rate; the  oldest  and  purest  text  is  to  be  followed; 
errors,  obscurities,  and  inconsistencies  are  to  be 
removed;  uniformity  in  rendering  Hebrew  and  Greek 
words  and  proper  names  to  be  sought.  In  one  word, 
the  revision  is  to  give,  in  idiomatic  English,  the 
nearest  possible  equivalent  for  the  original  Word  of 
God  as  it  came  from  the  inspired  organs  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  It  aims  to  be  the  best  version  possible  in  the 
nineteenth  century,  as  King  James's  version  was  the 
best  which  could  be  made  in  the  seventeenth  century. 

IV.  The  PRINCIPLES  of  the  revision,  as  adopted  at  the 
outset  by  both  Committees,  are  the  following: — 

*'l.  To  introduce  as  few  alterations  as  possible  into 
the  text  of  tlie  authorized  version  consistently  with 
faithfulness. 

(Faithfulness  to  the  original,  which  is  the  first  duty 
of  a  translator,  requires  a  great  many  changes,  though 
mostly  of  an  unessential  ctiaracter.) 


INTRODUCTORY   STATEMENT.  17 

"  2.  To  limit,  as  far  as  possible,  the  expression  of  such 
alterations  to  the  language  of  the  authorized  or  earlier 
versions. 

(So  far,  only  one  new  word  has  been  introduced  in 
the  ]N'ew  Testament.) 

"  3.  Each  Company  to  go  twice  over  the  portion  to 
be  revised,  once  provisionally,  the  second  time  finally. 

"4.  That  the  text  to  be  adopted  be  that  for  which  the 
evidence  is  decidedly  preponderating ;  and  that  when 
the  text  so  adopted  differs  from  that  from  which  the 
authorized  version  was  made,  the  alteration  be  indicated 
in  the  margin. 

(The  Hebrew  text  followed  is  the  Masoretic,  which 
presents  few  variations.  The  text  of  the  'New  Testa- 
ment is  taken  from  the  oldest  and  best  uncial  MSS., 
the  oldest  versions,  and  patristic  quotations ;  while  the 
received  text  from  which  King  James's  version  was 
made,  is  derived  from  comparatively  late  mediaeval 
MSS.) 

"5.  To  make  or  retain  no  change  in  the  text,  on  the 
second  final  revision  by  each  Company,  except  two- 
thirds  of  those  present  approve  of  the  same;  but  on  the 
first  revision  to  decide  by  simple  majorities. 

"  6.  In  every  case  of  proposed  alteration  that  may  have 
given  rise  to  discussion,  to  defer  the  voting  thereon  till 
the  next  meeting,  whensoever  the  same  shall  be  required 
by  one-third  of  those  present  at  the  meeting,  such  in- 
tended vote  to  be  announced  in  the  notice  for  the  next 
meeting. 

"7.  To  revise  the  headings  of  chapters,  pages,  para- 
graphs, italics,  and  punctuation. 

"  8.  To  refer,  on  the  part  of  each  Company,  when 
considered  desirable,  to  divines,  scholars,  and  literary 
men,  whether  at  home  or  abroad,  for  their  opinions." 
2* 


18  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE    REVISION. 

If  these  principles  are  faithfully  carried  out  (as  they 
have  heen  thus  far),  the  people  need  not  apprehend  any 
dangerous  innovations.  J^o  article  of  faith,  no  moral 
|)reccpt,  will  he  disturbed,  no  sectarian  views  will  be 
introduced.  The  revision  will  so  nearly  resemble  the' 
present  version,  that  the  mass  of  readers  and  hearers 
will  scarcely  perceive  the  ditierence;  while  a  careful 
comparison  will  show  slight  improvements  in  every 
chapter  and  almost  in  every  verse.  The  only  serious 
difficulty  may  arise  from  a  change  of  the  text  in  a  few 
instances  where  the  overwhelming  evidence  of  the  oldest 
manuscripts  makes  a  change  necessary;  and  perhaps 
also  from  the  omission  of  italics,  the  metrical  arrange- 
ment of  poetry  and  the  sectional  of  prose,  and  from  new 
headings  of  chapters,  which,  however,  are  no  part  of  the 
Word  of  God,  and  may  be  handled  with  greater  freedom. 

Y.  Mode  of  Operation. — The  English  Companies 
transmit,  from  time  to  time,  confidential  copies  of  their 
revision  to  the  American  Companies;  the  American 
Companies  send  the  results  of  their  labors  to  the  British 
Companies,  likewise  in  strict  confidence.  Then  follows 
a  second  revision  on  the  part  of  both  Committees,  with 
a  view  to  harmonize  the  two  revisions,  and  the,  results 
of  the  second  revision  are  transmitted  in  like  manner. 

If  any  diiforences  should  remain,  after  a  final  vote, 
tliey  will  be  indicated  in  an  appendix  or  preface. 
TTap})ily,  they  will  be  few  and  unessential  as  co7ni)ared 
with  the  large  number  of  improvements  already  adopted 
by  both  Committees. 

The  work  is  not  distributed  among  sub-committees, 
as  was  the  case  with  the  Revisers  of  King  James,  but 
the  whole  Old  Testament  Company  goes  carefully 
through  all  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  New 


INTRODUCTORY  STATEMENT.  19 

Testament  Company  through  those  of  the  New ;  and 
in  this  way  greater  harmony  and  consistency  will  be 
secured  than  was  possible  under  the  otlier  system. 

The  revision  has  been  wisel}^  carried  on  without  pub- 
licity, and  the  actual  results  of  their  labors  are  not  yet 
made  known.  Any  public  statements,  therefore,  of 
particular  changes  are  wholly  unauthorized  and  prema- 
ture. The  Committees,  by  publishing  parts  of  their 
work  before  a  final  revision,  would  become  entamrled 
in  controversy  and  embarrassed  in  their  progress. 

When  the  revision  is  thoroughly  matured,  it  will  be 
given  to  the  public,  as  the  joint  work  of  both  Commit- 
tees, by  the  University  Presses  of  Oxford  and  Cam- 
bridge, which  publish  the  best  and  cheapest  editions 
of  the  Bible  in  England,  and  will  insure  the  utmost 
accuracy  in  typography.  When  adopted  by  the  Churches 
and  Bible  Societies  of  the  two  countries,  the  revised 
English  Bible  will  become  public  property,  like  King 
James's  version. 

VI.  Expenses. — The  labor  of  the  Revisers  in  both 
countries  is  given  without  compensation.  The  necessary 
expenses  for  travelling,  printing,  etc.,  of  the  British 
Committee,  are  paid  by  the  University  Presses ;  those 
of  the  American  Committee,  by  voluntary  contributions 
of  liberal  friends,  under  the  direction  of  an  auxiliary 
Committee  of  Finance. 

VII.  Progress  and  Probable  Eesult. — It  was  calcu- 
lated at  the  beginning  of  the  work  that  the  revision 
could  be  completed  in  ten  years  of  uninterrupted  labor. 
It  may  take  about  two  years  more.  At  this  time 
(December,  1878)  the  two  l^ew  Testament  Companies 
have  finished  the  first  and  a  part  of  the  second  revision 


20  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION. 

(the  Englisli  Company  being  several  montlis  ahead  of 
the  American);  the  Okl  Testament  Companies  have 
done  more  than  half,  perhaps  two-thirds,  of  their  work. 
It  is  probable  that  the  revised  New  Testament,  at  least, 
possibly  also  parts  of  the  Old  Testament,  will  be 
published  in  1880,  just  '^ve  hundred  years  after  John 
TVyclitfe  finished  the  first  complete  version  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  in  the  English  language. 

After  they  have  finished  their  labors  the  two  Com- 
mittees will  disband.  It  will  then  be  for  the  Churches 
and  Bible  Societies  to  take  up  the  Revision,  and  to  decide 
whether  it  shall  take  the  place  of  King  James's  Version, 
or  at  least  be  used  alongside  with  it,  in  public  worship. 
It  is  not  expected,  of  course,  that  the  old  version,  which 
is  so  deepl}^  imbedded  in  our  religious  literature,  will 
ever  go  entirel}^  out  of  use,  certainly  not  for  a  long  time 
to  come. 

The  Revision  will,  no  doubt,  be  opposed,  like  every- 
thing new,  and  will  have<  to  pass  through  a  severe 
ordeal  of  criticism.  Many  will  condemn  it  as  too  radical, 
others  as  too  conserv\ative,  but  it  will  be  found  ulti- 
mately to  occupy  the  sound  niediiim  between  the  two 
opposite  extremes.  The  Churches  will  have  either  to 
adopt  this  Anglo-American  Bible,  t)r  to  dismiss  an 
oecumenical  revision  for  an  indefinite  number  of  years. 
In  the  one  case  we  shall  retain  the  bond  of  inter-denomi- 
national and  inter-national  union  in  a  common  Bible;  in 
the  other,  the  irrepressible  task  of  correcting  King 
James's  Version  will  be  carried  on  more  zealously  than 
ever  by  unauthorized  individuals,  and  by  sectarian  en- 
terprise, which  will  increase  the  difliculty  by  multiply- 
ing confusion  and  division. 

But  we  never  had  the  least  fear  of  tlie  final  result. 
There  never  has  been  such  a  truly  providential   combi- 


INTRODUCTORY  STATEMENT.  21 

nation  of  favorable  circumstances,  and  of  able  and  sound 
Biblical  scholars  from  all  the  evangelical  Churches  of  the 
two  great  nations  speaking  the  English  language,  for 
such  a  holy  work  of  our  common  Christianity,  as  is 
presented  in  the  Anglo-American  Bible  Revision  Com- 
mittees. This  providential  juncture,  the  remarkable 
harmony  of  the  Revisers  in  tlie  prosecution  of  their  work, 
and  the  growing  desire  of  the  Churches  for  a  timely 
improvement  and  rejuvenation  of  our  venerable  English 
Version,  justify  the  expectation  of  a  speedy  and  general 
adoption  of  the  new  Revision  in  Great  Britain  and 
America. 


THE  OLDER  ENGLISH  AXD  THE  AUTHORIZED 
VERSIONS. 

BY  CHARLES  P.  KRAUTH,  S.T.D.,  LL.D., 
Vice-Provost  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania. 

I.  Christianity  e:jtered  Britain  in  the  second  cen- 
tury, prevailed  in  the  third,  waned  with  the  passing 
away  of  the  Roman  power,  went  down  before  the  march 
of  the  Pagan  invaders,  rose  agaui  in  the  sixth  century, 
and  was  again  triumphant  before  the  close  of  the  seventh. 
Saxon  paraphrases  and  versions  of  the  Psalter,  of  the 
Gospels,  and  of  other  parts  of  Holy  Scripture,  were 
early  made  from  tlie  Latin.  The  Danish  inroads  checked 
the  work  of  Saxon  translation,  and  the  Xorman  Con- 
quest rendered  it  useless. 

H.  Wycliffe  and  the  Reformation. — In  the  four- 
teenth century  arose  Wycliffe  (1324-1384).  Called  to 
the  work  of  Reformation  in  faith  and  life,  he  saw,  with 
the  divine  instincts  of  his  mission,  that  nothing  but  the 
true  rule  of  faith  and  life  could  remove  the  evil  and 
restore  the  good,  and  that  the  restoration  would  be  per- 
manent only  in  the  degree  to  which  every  estate  of  the 
Church  should  be  enabled,  by  possession  of  the  rule,  to 
apply  and  guard  its  teachings.  He  appealed  to  the 
Word,  and  to  sustain  his  appeal  translated  the  Word. 
He  appealed  to  the  people,  and  put  into  their  hands  the 
book  divinely  given  to  shape  their  convictions.  The 
translation  of  the  Scriptures  as  a  whole  into  English 
first  came  from  his  hands  or  under  his  supervisic^n.  It 
was  finished  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  fourteenth  cen- 
tury. It  was  made  from  the  Vulgate.  Even  had 
Wycliffe  been  a  Greek  and  Hebrew  scholar,  it  is  doubt- 

99 


OLDER  ENGLISH  VERSIONS.  2S 

ful  whether  he  could  have  secured  texts  of  the  sacred 
orio^inals  from  which  to  translate.  That  he  translated 
the  version  universally  received  in  the  Western  Church, 
quoted  by  her  fathers,  read,  and  sung,  and  preached 
from,  in  her  services,  and  that  he  rendered  it  with  a 
severe  closeness  approaching  servility,  would  help  to 
remove  prejudice,  and  to  avert  or  soften  the  suspicion 
that  he  was  adapting  Scripture  to  his  own  ends,  against 
the  Roman  hierarcliy.  Like  Luther,  Wycliffe  drew  to 
him  co-workers  in  his  translation ;  like  Luther  he  suf- 
fered from  plagiarists  of  his  work;  like  Luther  he  saw 
his  work  eagerly  circulated,  bitterly  opposed,  and  tri- 
umphant over  opposition;  like  Luther  he  escaped  the 
stake,  with  which  he  was  threatened ;  like  Luther  his 
enemies  sougiit  to  wreak  upon  his  bones  the  malice 
which  survived  his  death,  but  there  was  no  Charles  the 
Fifth  to  respond,  "  I  war  with  the  living,  not  with  the 
dead."  The  Council  of  Constance  ordered  the  dis- 
honoring of  Wycliffe's  remains;  Pope  Martin  the  Fifth, 
in  the  cold  blood  of  a  delay  of  thirteen  years,  com- 
manded the  execution  of  the  order;  the  Bishop  of  Lin- 
coln, an  apostate  adherent  of  Wycliffe,  obeyed  it.  The 
bones  were  burned,  and  winds  and  waves  swept  them 
into  an  "  emblem  of  his  doctrine,  which  is  now  dispersed 
all  the  world  over."  Wycliffe  was  the  dayspring  of  the 
coming  noontide  of  divine  light. 

in.  Paper  and  Printing. — Two  material  aids  were 
maturing,  to  bear  part  in  the  grand  revolution  which 
was  approaching.  Paper  made  from  rags  began  in  the 
thirteenth  century  to  take  the  place  of  parchment; 
printing  from  movable  type,  in  the  fifteenth,  began  the 
unequal  contest  with  the  pen.  Paper  and  printing  were 
to  be  in  the  struggle  of  thought  what  powder  and  fire- 


24  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE   REVISION. 

arms  had  become  in  the  battle-field.  Had  it  not  been 
for  the  new  arts  which  intellectualize  man,  the  new  arts 
which  were  tributary  to  war  would  only  have  made  the 
domain  of  brute  force  complete  and  final.  The  lamp- 
black and  oil  were  to  neutralize  the  nitre,  and  charcoal, 
and  sulphur. 

IV.  Tyndale's  Translation. — The  illustrious  Eng- 
lishman who  was  to  be  the  father  of  the  era  to  come,  in 
the  translation  of  scripture  into  his  vernacular,  was  Wil- 
liam Tyndale.  He  was  "  to  cause  the  boy  who  driveth 
the  plow  to  know  more  of  the  Scriptures"  than  had 
been  known  by  those  who  pretended  to  be  divines.  It 
is  said  that  Tyndale  met  Luther  at  Wittenberg ;  it  is 
certain  that  he  met  Luther  in  Luther's  works,  and  that 
whether  by  personal  or  by  spiritual  contact,  or  by  both, 
he  drew  the  inspiration  of  a  Biblical  translator  from  the 
greatest  of  translators.  Luther  was  Tyndale's  exemplar 
and  his  master,  not  as  the  master  of  a  slave,  but  as  the 
master  of  a  noble  pupil.  It  is  a  legend  that  at  Witten- 
berg Tyndale  completed  his  translation,  assisted  by 
Roye,  1526.  Using  all  the  aids  of  the  time,  as  fully  as 
his  harassed  condition  allowed,  Tyndale  used  most  of  all 
the  best  of  all,  Luther's  translations  as  they  appeared. 
He  followed  Luther  in  the  order  in  which  his  work  ap- 
peared: the  New  Testament,  the  Pentateuch,  Jonah. 
Tyndale's  own  final  revision  of  his  New  Testament  was 
finished  1534.  From  the  prison  in  which  his  last  hours 
were  spent  in  adapting  his  work  to  the  humblest  of  the 
people,  he  was  taken  forth,  strangled,  and  burned  to 
ashes.  It  is  no  extravagance  to  say  that  to  him  our 
English  Bible  owes  more  than  to  all  tlic  other  laborers. 
His  name  will  forever  stand  in  the  roll  of  the  supreme 
benefactors  of  the  race. 


OLDER    ENGLISH    VERSIONS.  25 

V.  CovERD ale's  Translation. — Another  wave  of  the 
great  tide  is  sweeping  on,  before  the  first  is  wholly 
spent  upon  the  shore.  Tyndale  was  burned  1536. 
Coverdale,  who  is  said  to  have  aided  Tyndale  in  his 
work  at  Hamburg,  1529,  put  forth  a  complete  transla- 
tion of  the  Bible  in  1535,  marking  in  the  dedication  to 
the  king  the  change  that  was  going  on  in  England. 
Coverdale  had  neither  the  creative  power  nor  Biblical 
learning  of  Tyndale.  His  translation  bears  internal 
evidence  on  every  page  that  it  was  not  made  from  the 
originals.  It  shows  no  acquaintance  on  the  part  of  the 
translator  with  either  Hebrew  or  Greek;  it  follows 
closely  the  translations  it  translates,  and  fully  corrobo- 
rates the  statement  of  the  title-page  that  it  is  "  out  of 
Douche  [German]  and  Latyn,"  and  the  honest  and 
explicit  account  of  Coverdale  himself,  that  it  was  "  trans- 
lated out  of  fyve  sundry  interpreters,"  "  not  onely  in 
Latyn,  but  also  of  the  Douche  [German]  interpreters." 
He  says,  with  truth :  "  Lowly  and  faythfuUy  have  I  fol- 
lowed myne  interpreters;"  he  followed  even  their  typo- 
graphical errors,  and  sometimes  transfers  a  word  with 
an  English  sound  without  translating  it.  The  Latin 
interpreters  of  the  five  are  the  Vulgate,  and  probably 
Erasmus  and  Pagninus ;  the  German  are  Luther,  and 
the  Zurich  Version,  in  part  by  Leo  Juda  (of  the  un- 
changed text  previous  to  1534).  Tyndale's  labors  he 
has  largely  appropriated  without  acknowledgment. 
Coverdale's  ]^ew  Testament  is  Tyndale's,  altered  at 
times  to  correspond  especially  with  the  German,  whose 
meaning  Coverdale  has  not  unfrequently  mistaken. 
But  Coverdale  has  introduced  from  his  interpreters 
many  felicities  which  linger  still  in  the  Authorized  Ver- 
sion. The  Coverdale  Bible  was  submitted  by  Henry 
VIII.  to  the  Bishops,  was  approved,  and  ordered  to  be 
3 


26  AITOLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE   REVISION. 

placed  in  the  cliurches.  But  before  the  order  could  be 
executed  Henry  was  absorbed  anew  in  one  of  those 
loves,  not  worthy  of  so  sacred  a  name,  which  dictated 
his  policy  in  Church  and  State,  and  his  zeal  for  the 
Scriptures  abated  in  proportion.  The  Bible,  neverthe- 
less, was  tolerated,  but  the  new  dedication  transferred 
to  "the  dearest  just  wife,  and  most  virtuous  princess, 
Queen  Jane,"  what  had  been  assigned,  with  the  same 
epithets,  in  the  first,  to  Queen  Anne. 

VI.  Matthew's  Bible. — An  ineffectual  attempt  was 
now  made  by  Cranmer  for  a  revision,  to  be  made  in 
conjunction  with  learned  bishops  and  others.  Soon 
after,  what  is  called  the  Matthew's  Bible  appeared,  1537. 
It  is  a  combination  of  the  labors  of  Tyndale  (partly 
posthumous)  and  of  Coverdale,  revised,  and  published 
under  the  assumed  name  of  Matthew,  by  John  Rogers, 
the  friend  of  Tyndale.  It  was  sent  to  Crumwell,  and 
through  his  influence  received  the  approval  of  that 
same  royal  authority  which  had  helped  to  hunt  its  chief 
author  to  the  death. 

The  principle  of  the  free  reading  and  circulation  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  was  coming  to  be  generally  accepted. 
As  it  became  a  settled  conviction  that  the  Scriptures  of 
right  belongeJ  to  the  people,  room  was  left  for  a  more 
careful  searching  into  the  character  of  the  particular 
translations.  Fault  was  found  with  the  Tyndalc-Mat- 
thew's  Bible,  mainly  because  of  its  Prologues  and  Notes. 
The  "  Great  Bible  "  appeared  1539,  without  these  addi- 
tions. It  was  edited  by  Coverdale,  and  printed  at  Paris, 
by  permission  of  Francis  i. 

Vn.  The  Great  Bible  is  a  revision,  very  imperfectly 
made,  of  the  Tyndale-Matthew's  Bible.'  What  is  new  is 
mainly  drawn  from  Munster's  Latin  translation  of  the 


OLDER   ENGLISH   VERSIONS.  27 

Old  Testament  (1534-35).  The  inspiration  and  material 
for  English  revision  came  almost  entirely  from  the  Conti- 
nent; England  did  not  have  an  independent  Biblical 
scholar  of  the  highest  order  in  the  sixteenth  century. 
The  Great  Bible  inserts  in  smaller  type,  at  their  places, 
the  peculiar  renderings  of  the  Vulgate.  In  general  it 
is  marked  by  the  features  of  conservatism  endeavoring 
to  harmonize  with  reformation.  The  Inquisition  set 
itself  against  the  civil  power,  and  in  spite  of  the  permis- 
sion granted  by  the  King  of  France,  the  Bibles  were 
seized  and  most  of  them  burned.  A  few,  however, 
were  saved  and  completed  in  London  1539.  Taverner's 
Bible  (1539),  is  also  a  hasty  revision  of  Tyndale,  but 
retains  the  marginal  notes  and  increases  their  number. 
In  1540  appeared  the  Cranmer  Bible,  wdiich  is  a  revision 
in  part  of  the  Great  Bible  of  the  previous  year.  It  takes 
its  name  from  the  Archbishop's  prologue,  and  the  offi- 
cial responsibility  of  the  changes  rests  with  him. 

VIII.  Henry  viii.  and  the  Bible. — In  various  acci- 
dents Henry  viii.  seemed  to  be  a  Protestant;  in  substance 
he  never  ceased  to  be  a  Komanist;  his  opposition  to  the 
Pope  was  the  result  of  the  opposition  of  the  Pope  to 
him.  A  compliant  Papacy  might  have  kept  Henry  the 
most  rigorous  Papist  of  his  age.  His  policy  was  a  see- 
saw of  self-will.  The  beauty  of  Catharine  Howard  cost 
Crumwell  his  head.  Soon  after,  three  Protestants  and 
three  Papists  were '  burned  together,  the  former  for 
asserting  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  the  latter 
for  want  of  faith  in  the  king's  supremacy.  The  king 
saw  to  it  that  the  Bible  was  circulated,  and  then  piously 
burned  men  to  death  for  believing  it  in  any  respect 
wherein  it  did  not  agree  with  the  king's  views.  It  was 
rather  in  spite  of  the  dubious  aid  given  by  Henry,  tban 


28  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BlLLi:    REVISION. 

in  consequence  of  it,  that  God's  Word  was  widely  cir- 
culated and  read. 

IX.  CovERDALE  AND  EoGERS. — Aftcr  the  death  of 
Henry  VIII.  (1547; ,  Somerset,  the  Lord  Protector,  removed 
the  restriction  which  had  embarrassed  the  readinc:  of  the 
Scriptures.  Coverdale  was  made  Bishop  of  Exeter  1551, 
but  was  too  poor  to  take  possession.  All  things  changed 
on  the  accession  of  Mary.  Rogers,  after  his  editorship 
of  the  Matthew's  Bible,  had  been  at  Wittenberg,  and 
legend  affirms,  "  being  skilled  in  the  German  language, 
took  charge  of  a  congregation  there."  He  returned  to 
England,  only  to  lead  the  van  of  the  martyrs  of  1555. 
Coverdale,  on  the  intercession  of  the  King  of  Denmark, 
was  allowed  to  take  refuge  in  his  dominion. 

X.  Xew  Testament  of  1557.— A  translation  of  the 
JS'ew  Testament  appeared  at  Geneva  1557,  probably 
by  ^Vliittingham,  whose  wife  was  Calvin's  sister.  It  is 
largely,  but  not  exclusively,  a  careful  revision  of  Tyn- 
dale  and  Cranmer,  with  many  proofs  of  the  influence 
of  Beza's  labors.  It  has  annotations ;  it  marks  by  italics 
the  words  supplied,  and  for  the  first  time  in  English  has 
the  division  into  verses,  following  the  Greek  of  Ste- 
phanus,  1551. 

XI.  Geneva  Bible  15G0.— In  15G0  the  whole  Bible, 
with  annotations,  appeared  at  Geneva.  It  is  the  work 
of  a  number  of  refugees  on  the  Continent,  and  is  really 
the  first  complete  direct  translation  of  the  Bible  into 
English  from  the  originals  throughout.  It  became  the 
Bible  of  the  people,  and  passed  through  more  than  a 
hundred  editions.  Coverdale,  who  had  taken  a  promi- 
nent part  in  it,  returned  to  England  1559,  and  died 
1568,  at  the  age  of  eighty-one,  very  poor  in  this  world's 


OLDER  ENGLISH  VERSIONS.  29 

goods,  but  very  ricli  in  the  love  of  good  men,  and  the 
approval  of  God. 

XII.  Bishops'  Bible. — Under  Elizabeth,  the  Cranmer 
Bible  was  in  authority  again.  It  was  open,  however, 
to  many  serious  objections.  One  of  the  most  vital, 
which  largely  contributed  to  the  others,  was,  that  it  is 
not  throughout  made  from  the  originals,  that  it  is  inter- 
polated with  what  are  confessedly  translations  of  a 
translation,  and  that  much  of  the  revision  is  superficial, 
and  some  of  it  purely  nominal.  The  Puritan  origin  of 
the  Geneva  Bible  and  the  character  of  its  notes  pre- 
vented its  universal  acceptance.  Parker,  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  distributed  the  Cranmer  Bible  among 
the  "  able  bishops  and  other  learned  men"  for  revision, 
subject  to  his  own  final  decision.  The  result  of  their 
labor  was  published  in  1568,  and,  after  a  somewhat 
completer  revision,  in  1572,  and  is  known  as  the  Bishops' 
Bible.  It  made  a  number  of  particular  improvements 
and  has  brief  notes,  but  was  so  devoid  of  elasticity, 
spontaneousness,  and  popular  character,  as  to  make  it 
certain  that  its  reception  could,  at  most,  be  only  provi- 
sional. 

XIII.  Rheims  Xew  Testament. — The  Church  of 
Eome  was  driven  at  last,  in  self  defense,  to  publish  an 
Endish  translation  of  the  Xew  Testament.  Rheims 
became  the  Geneva  of  the  English  Romanist  refugees, 
and  in  1582  they  issued  a  translation  of  the  Xew  Testa- 
ment "  into  English  out  of  the  authentical  Latin,"  with 
annotations,  exposures  of  the  corruptions  of  other 
translations,  and  a  great  body  of  polemical  matter.  It 
is  "  out  of"  the  Latin,  as  it  claims  to  be,  but  its  claim 
to  be  "  into  English  "  is  at  times  more  than  doubtful. 
It  exhibits  traces  of  the  influence  of  the  Protestant 


30  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE    REVISION. 

renderings,  but  has  given  more  than  it  has  taken. 
Wyclitfe  and  his  mediaeval  co-workers  can  be  distinctly 
traced  in  it.  The  Eheims,  in  an  important  class  of 
religious  terms,  unmistakably  influenced  and  benefitted 
the  Authorized  Version,  and  has  carried  over  to  it  no  few 
of  the  peculiarities  of  Wyclifie.  To  this  is  due  the 
extraordinary  fact  that  while  there  is  hardly  a  seeming 
parallelism,  and  not  a  solitary  demonstrable  one,  any- 
where, between  Wyclitfe  and  Tyndale,  the  parallelisms 
are  many  between  Wycliife  and  the  Authorized  Ver- 
sion. This  is  another  of  the  points  of  interest  and 
beauty  in  that  remarkable  version,  which,  in  its  aggre- 
gations, stands  ahnost  unique  as  a  nuracle  of  provi- 
dence and  history,  the  symbol  of  England  itself,  whose 
greatness  has  so  largely  sprung  from  appropriating 
what  others  have  produced  and  actualizing  what  others 
have  dreamed. 

XIV.  King  James's  Bible  Begun. — When  James  i. 
came  to  the  throne  he  found  his  subjects  within  the 
Church  of  England  divided  into  Conformists  and  Puri- 
tans— those  who  were  satisfied  with  the  reformation 
already  made,  and  those  who  wislied  a  more  radical  one. 
The  Puritans  had  high  hopes  of  the  King,  and  early 
laid  their  complaints  before  him.  At  the  Hampton 
Conference,  January  16,  1604,  in  which  the  two  parties 
discussed  the  questions  which  divided  them,  a  request 
came  from  Dr.  Reynolds,  a  leader  among  the  Puritans, 
for  a  new  version  of  the  Bible.  The  proposal  was  at  first 
resisted  by  the  churchly  party,  probably  from  a  suspicion 
created  by  its  source.  The  King  pleased  the  Puritans 
by  inclining  to  their  request,  and  propitiated  the  Con- 
formists by  pronouncing  the  Geneva  the  worst  of  the 
English  versions,  made  more  intolerable  ])y  its  untrue 


KING   JAMES'S    VERSION.  61 

and  traitorous  notes.  Prompt  and  wise  measures  were 
adopted  for  a  new  tran'slation.  Fifty-four  learned  men 
were  appointed  by  the  King  for  the  work,  who  were 
also  to  secure  the  suggestions  of  all  competent  persons, 
that  "  our  said  translation  may  have  the  hel^D  and 
furtherance  of  all  our  principal  learned  men  within  this 
our  kingdom."  The  attitude  of  the  King,  the  removal 
of  their  first  suspicions,  and  the  merits  of  the  case, 
brought  about  a  hearty  acquiescence  on  the  part  of 
those  who  had  at  first  opposed  the  movement.  His 
Majesty's  instructions  to  the  translators  were  these : — 

INSTRUCTIONS  TO  THE  TRANSLATORS. 

"  1.  The  ordinary  Bible  read  in  the  Church,  commonly  called  the 
Bishops'  Bible,  to  be  followed,  and  as  little  altered  as  the  original  will 
permit. 

"  2.  The  names  of  the  prophets  and  the  holy  writers,  with  the  other 
names  in  the  text,  to  be  retained,  as  near  as  may  be,  accordingly  as  they 
are  vulgarly  used. 

"  3.  The  old  ecclesiastical  words  to  be  kept,  as  the  word  church,  not 
to  be  translated  congregation. 

"  4.  When  any  word  hath  divers  significations,  that  to  be  kept  which 
hath  been  most  commonly  used  by  the  most  eminent  fathers,  being 
agreeable  to  the  propriety  of  the  place  and  the  analogies  of  faith. 

"  5.  The  division  of  chapters  to  be  altered  either  not  at  all  or  as 
little  as  may  be,  if  necessity  so  require. 

"  6.  No  marginal  notes  at  all  to  be  affixed,  but  only  for  the  explana- 
tion of  the  Hebrew  or  Greek  words,  which  cannot,  without  some 
circumlocution,  so  briefly  and  fitly  be  expressed  in  the  text. 

"  7.  Such  quotations  of  places  to  be  marginally  set  down  as  shall 
serve  for  the  fit  reference  of  one  Scripture  to  another. 

"  8.  Every  particular  man  of  each  company  to  take  the  same 
chapter  or  chapters ;  and,  having  translated  or  amended  them  severally 
by  himself  where  he  thinks  good,  all  to  meet  together  to  confirm  what 
they  have  done  and  agree  for  their  part  what  Shall  stand. 

"9.  As  any  one  company  hath  dispatched  any  one  book  in  this 
manner,  they  shall  send  it  to  the  rest,  to  be  considered  of  seriously  and 
judiciously ;  for  his  Majesty  is  very  careful  in  this  point. 

"  10.  If  any  company,  upon  the  review  of  the  book  so  sent,  shall  doubt 
or  differ  upon  any  places,  to  send  them  word  thereof,  to  note  the  places. 


32  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE   REVISION. 

and  therewithal!  to  send  their  reasons ;  to  which  if  they  consent  not,  the 
diflereuce  to  be  compounded  at  the  genetal  meeting,  which  is  to  be  of 
the  chief  persons  of  each  company,  at  the  end  of  the  work. 

"11.  When  any  place  of  special  obscurity  is  doubted  of,  letters  to 
be  directed  by  authority  to  send,  to  any  learned  in  the  land  for  his  judg- 
ment in  such  a  place. 

"  12.  Lettere  to  be  sent  from  every  bishop  to  the  rest  of  his  clergy, 
admonishing  them  of  this  translation  in  hand,  and  to  move  and  charge 
as  many  as,  being  skillful  in  the  tongues,  have  taken  pains  in  that  kind, 
to  send  their  particular  observations  to  the  company,  either  at  West- 
minster, Cambridge  or  Oxford,  according  as  it  was  directed  before  in 
the  King's  letter  to  the  archbishop. 

"  13.  The  directors  in  each  company  to  be  the  Deans  of  West- 
minster and  Chester,  for  Westminster,  and  the  King's  professors  in 
Hebrew  and  Greek  in  the  two  universities. 

"  14.  These  translations  to  be  used  when  they  agree  better  with  the 
text  than  the  Bishops'  Bible:  Tyndale's,  Coverdale's,  Matthew's 
[Kogers's],  Whitchurch's  [Cranmer's],  Geneva." 

15.  By  a  later  rule  "  three  or  four  of  the  most  ancient  and  grave 
divines,  in  either  of  the  Universities,  not  employed  in  translating, 
to  be  assigned  to  be  overseers  of  the  translation,  for  the  better  observation 
of  the  fourth  rule." 

The  translators,  probably  forty-seven  in  all,  were 
divided  into  six  parties,  two  of  which  met  in  Oxford, 
two  in  Cambridge  and  two  in  Westminster.  In  their 
numljcr  were  the  greatest  English  scholars  of  tlie  time. 
The  learning  of  that  age  was  almost  exclusively  in 
connection  with  theological  interests.  The  rules  pre- 
scribed by  the  King  may  be  accepted  as  a  guide  to  the 
mode  in  which  the  translators  actually  proceeded. 

XV.  King  James's  Bible  Finished. — The  work 
commenced,  probably,  before  the  close  of  1604:  the  Kew 
Version  was  issued  1611.  It  bore  the  title :  "The  Holy 
Bible,  Conteyning  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  New: 
1[Xewly  Translated  out  of  the  Originall  Tongues:  and 
with  the  former  translations  diligently  Compared  and 
Revised."   The  second  part  of  this  statement  is  meant, in 


KING    JAMES'S    VERSION.  33 

a  certain  sense,  to  define  and  quality  the  first.  The 
translation  is  new;  but  its  newness  is  not  that  of  a  wholly 
independent  work,  but  that  of  a  revision,  in  which  there 
has  been  a  diligent  comparison  of  the  former  English 
Translations,  enumerated  in  the  King's  Instructions, 
the  Bishops'  Bible  being  laid  as  the  general  basis  of 
the  whole  work.  "  Truly,"  say  the  translators,  who 
were  too  great  for  the  pretentiousness  of  a  false  inde- 
pendence, "  we  never  thought,  from  the  beginning,  that 
we  should  need  to  make  a  new  Translation,  nor  yet  to 
make  of  a  bad  one  a  good  one ;  but  to  make  a  good 
one  better,  or  out  of  many  good  ones,  one  principal 
good  one."  Without  this  confession  the  Authorized 
Version  would  tell  its  own  story.  It  is  only  necessary 
to  compare  it  with  the  older  versions,  to  see  that  with 
much  that  is  original,  with  many  characteristic  beauties, 
in  some  of  which  no  other  translation  approaches  it,  it 
is  yet  in  the  main  a  revision.  Even  its  original  beau- 
ties are  often  the  mosaic  of  an  exquisite  combination  of 
the  fragments  of  the  older.  Comparing  it  with  the 
English  exemplars  it  follows,  we  must  say  it  is  not  the 
fruit  of  their  bloom,  but  the  ripeness  of  their  fruit. 

The  king,  in  endorsing  the  suggestion  of  Dr.  Rey- 
nolds, had  expressed  the  x>urpose  that  the  new  transla- 
tion "  should  be  ratified  by  royal  authority,  and  adopted 
for  exclusive  use  in  all  the  churches."  The  title-page 
claims  that  the  work  is  done  by  "  his  Maiesties  special 
commandment,"  and  is  "  appointed  to  be  read  in 
churches.^'  It  comes  from  the  press  of  "  Robert 
Barker,  Printer  to  the  King's  most  excellent  Maiestie." 
Whatever  may  be  the  weight  of  civil  authority  implied 
in  these  statements,  it  is  certain  that  the  new  version 
was  left  to  win  its  way  by  its  own  merits  purely,  and 
that  neither  external  nor  moral  coercion  was  employed 


84  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE    REVISION. 

ill  its  behalf.  The  Epistles  and  Gospels  from  the 
Bishops'  Bible  were  retained  in  the  Prayer  Book  till 
the  linal  revision  in  1661 ;  the  Psalms  from  the  Cover- 
dale-Cranmer  translation  (not  made  from  the  Hebrew) 
lire  still  retained. 

XVI.  Excellence  of  King  James's  Version. — The 
Bible  of  1611  encountered  prejudices  and  overcame 
them;  it  had  rivals  great  in  just  claims  and  strong  in 
possession,  and  it  displaced  them ;  it  moved  slowly  that 
it  might  move  surely;  the  Church  of  England  lost 
many  of  her  children,  but  they  all  took  their  mother's 
Bible  with  them,  and  taking  that  they  were  not  wholly 
lost  to  her.  It  more  and  more  melted  indifference  into 
cordial  admiration,  secured  the  enthusiastic  approval 
of  the  cautious  scholar,  and  won  the  artless  love  of  the 
people.  It  has  kindled  into  fervent  praise  men  who 
were  cold  on  every  other  theme.  It  glorified  the 
tongue  of  the  worshipper  in  glorifying  God,  and  by  the 
inK[)i ration  indwelling  in  it,  and  the  inspiration  it  has 
imparted,  has  created  English  literature.  Its  most 
])rilliant  eulogies  have  come  from  those  who,  hating 
Protestantism,  yet  acknowledged  the  grandeur  of  this 
Book,  which  lives  by  that  Protestantism  of  which  it  is 
the  offspring,  that  Protestantism  to  which,  world-wide, 
it  gives  life  as  one  of  its  roots.  When  to  him  who  has 
been  caught  in  the  snare  of  unbelief,  or  drawn  by  the 
lure  of  false  belief,  every  other  chord  of  the  old  nmsic 
wakes  only  rej)ugnant  memories,  its  words  have  stolen 
in,  too  strong  to  be  beaten  back,  too  sweet  to  be  re- 
nounced, once  more  the  thunder  of  God's  power,  the 
pulsation  of  God's  heart.  Its  faults  have  been  hardly 
more  than  the  foils  of  its  beauties.  It  has  so  inter- 
woven, by  the  artistic  delicacy  even  of  its  mechanical 


KING  James's  version.  35 

transfers,  the  very  idioms  characteristic  of  the  sacred 
tongues,  that  Hebraisms  and  Hellenisms  need  no  com- 
ment to  the  English  mind,  but  come  as  parts  of  its 
simplest,  its  noblest,  its  deepest  thought  and  emotion. 
Its  words  are  nearer  to  men  than  their  own,  and  it 
gives  articulation  to  groanings  which  but  for  it  could 
not  be  uttered.  It  has  lifted  the  living  world  to  the 
solemn  fixedness  of  those  old  heavenly  thoughts  and 
feelings,  instead  of  dragging  them  by  low,  secular 
phrase  out  of  their  high  and  holy  thrones,  down  to  the 
dust  of  the  shifting  present,  or  leaving  them  dim  and 
dreary  behind  the  fog  of  pedantry.  It  has  fought 
against  the  relentless  tendency  of  time  to  change  lan- 
guage, and  has  won  all  the  great  fields ;  words  have 
dropped  away  or  have  deserted  their  meaning,  as 
soldiers  are  lost  even  by  the  side  which  conquers ;  but 
the  great  body  of  the  army  of  its  ancient  but  not  anti- 
quated forms,  among  the  sweetest  and  the  highest 
speech  beneath  the  voices  of  the  upper  world,  remains 
intact  and  victorious.  The  swords  of  its  armory  may 
have  gathered  here  and  there  a  spot  of  rust,  but  their 
double  edge*  has  lost  none  of  its  keenness,  and  their 
broad  surface  little  of  its  refulgence.  It  has  made  a 
new  translation,  as  against  something  old  and  fading, 
impossible,  for  it  is  itself  new,  more  fresh,  more  vital, 
more  youthful  than  anything  which  has  sought  to 
supplant  it.  We  need,  and  may  have,  a  revision  of  it. 
Itself  a  revision  of  revisions,  its  own  wonderful  growth 
reveals  the  secret  of  the  approach  to  perfection.  But 
by  very  virtue  of  its  grandly  closing  one  era  of  struggle 
it  opened  another,  for  in  human  efibrts  all  great  endings 
are  but  great  beginnings.  A  revision  we  may  have, 
but  a  substitute,  not  now — it  may  be  never.  The  acci- 
dents of  our  Authorized  Version  are  open  to  change, 


36  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION. 

but  its  substantial  part  is  beyond  it,  until  the  English 
takes  its  place  among  the  tongues  that  shall  cease. 
The  new  revision  will  need  little  new  ^English.  Its  best 
work  will  be  to  reduce  the  old  English  of  the  old  Version 
to  more  perfect  consistency  with  the  text  and  with  itself. 
That  Version  is  now,  and  unchanged  in  essence  will 
be,  perhaps  to  the  end  of  time,  the  mightiest  "bond — 
intellectual,  social,  and  religious — of  that  vast  body 
of  nations  which  girdles  the  earth,  and  spreads  far 
toward  the  poles,  the  nations  to  whom  the  English  is 
the  language  of  their  hearts,  and  the  English  Bible  the 
matchless  standard  of  that  language.  So  long  as 
Christianity  remains  to  them  the  light  out  of  God,  the 
English  Bible  will  be  cherished  by  millions  as  the 
dearest  conservator  of  pure  faith,  the  greatest  power 
of  holy  life  in  the  world. 


THE  El^GLISH  BIBLE  AS  A  CLASSIC.  * 

BY   TALBOT   W.    CHAMBERS,    D.D. 
Pastor  of  the  Collegiate  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  New  York. 

King  James's  Bible. — The  merits  of  the  Authorized 
Version,  in  point  of  fidelity  to  the  original,  are 
universally  acknowledged.  'No  other  version,  ancient 
or  modern,  surpasses  it,  save,  perhaps,  the  Dutch,  which 
was  made  suhsequently,  and  profited  by  the  labors  of 
the  English  translators.  But  a  version  may  be  faithful 
without  being  elegant.  It  may  be  accurate  without 
adequately  representing  the  riches  of  the  language  in 
which  it  is  made.  The  glory  of  the  English  Bible  is 
that  while  it  conveys  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  with  great 
exactness,  it  does  this  in  such  a  way  that  the  book  has 
become  the  highest  existing  standard  of  our  noble 
tongue.  Lord  Macaulay  calls  it  a  stupendous  work, 
which,  if  everything  else  in  our  language  should  perish, 
would  alone  sufiice  to  show  the  whole  extent  of  its 
beauty  and  power. 

It  is  true  that  Mr.  Ilallam  {Literature  of  Europe,  ii, 
58)  dissents  from  this  view,  and  seems  to  regard  it  as  a 
sort  of  superstition;  but  surely  he  is  wrong.  The 
praise  of  our  version  is  not  confined  to  men  of  any 
creed  or  class,  but  comes  from  nearly  every  eminent 
critic.  Men  who  differ  as  widely  in  other  matters  as 
Addison,  Swift,  Coleridge,  Matthew  Arnold,  both  the 
ITewmans,  and  Mr.  Ruskin,  yet  agree  on  this  point ; 
and  Mr.  Huxley  gave  voice  to  a  common  opinion  when 
he  said,  "  It  is  written  in  the  noblest  and  purest 
English,  and  abounds  in  exquisite  beauties  of  mere 
literary  form."  It  is,  therefore,  neither  prejudice  nor 
thoughtlessness- which  affirms  this  book  to  be  the  first 
4  .  37 


38  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION. 

of  English  classics.  Indeed,  its  pages  speak  for  them- 
selves. In  simplicity  and  strength,  in  the  union  of 
Saxon  force  and  Latin  dio:nity,  in  idiomatic  ease  and 
rhythmic  flow,  they  have  no  superior. 

Style  of  the  Version. — iSTor  is  it  difficult  to  account 
for  this.     It  is  true  that  the  style  of  writing  which  pre- 
vailed among  men  of  letters  in  the  reigns  of  Elizabeth 
and  James  i  was  not  adapted  to  such  composition.     In 
many  of  these  there  was  a  strange  fondness  for  allitera- 
tion, antithesis,  fanciful  analogies,  pedantic  allusions,  and 
all  sorts  of  conceits.    Even  Shakspeare  has  verbal  quib- 
bles which  "  make  the  judicious  grieve."  And  when  these 
are  avoided,  as  in  Bacon  and  Ealoigh,  there  is  a  degree  of 
stiffness,  of  inversion  and  occasionally  of  affectation, 
which  w^ould  be  an  insuperable  barrier  in  the  w^ay  of  pop- 
ular acceptance  and  favor.  The  authors  of  our  Bible  seem 
to  have  been  preserved  from  this  error  by  a  sort  of  provi- 
dential  preparation.     In  the   course  of  the   religious 
discussions  which  prevailed  in  England  from  the  days  of 
Wycliffe  down  there  had  grown  up  what  Mr.  Marsh  calls 
"a  consecrated  diction,"  an  assemblage  of  the  best  forms 
of  expression  suited  to  the  communication  of  sacred 
truths.     This  dialect,  if  one  may  so  style  it,  avoided 
equally  the  pedantry  of  the  schools  and  the  vulgarisms 
of  the  market-place.    It  never  crawled  upon  the  ground 
and  never  soared  in  the  clouds.     It  was  simple  and 
direct,  yet  pure  and  dignified.     It  was  intelligible  to 
all  classes,  yet  offensive  to  none.     It  seized  as  if  by 
instinct  the  best  elements  of  the  vernacular  speech,  and 
moulded   them   into   the   most    suitable    grammatical 
forms;    hence  it  is  marked  by  the  absence  of  book 
lansruaixe    or    "  iiikhorn    terms,"    and    also    of   mere 
colloquial  speech.     I'he  book  was  not  the  ])roduction 


THE   BIBLE    AS    A   CLASSIC.  39 

of  a  single  mind,  but  of  many  wise  and  good  men, 
laboring  through  a  series  of  years.  The  earliest  and 
most  influential  of  all  was  the  martyr  Tyndale,  whose 
New  Testament  was  issued  in  1525.  This  was  followed 
by  Coverdale's  Bible  (1535),  Rogers's  (1537),  Cranmer's 
(1539),  the  Genevan  (1560),  the  Bishops'  (1568).  At 
last,  in  1611,  the  final  outcome  of  these  years  of  toil 
appeared  in  our  present  Bible  as  it  came  from  the  hand 
of  King  James's  translators.  During  all  this  period  the 
process  of  revision  went  steadily  forward,  almost 
constantly  gaining  in  every  element  of  "vigor  and 
appropriateness. 

Authors  of  King  James's  Version. — The  character 
of  the  authors  had  much  to  do  with  the  perfection  of 
their  work.  They  were  men  of  learning,  judgment 
and  piety,  animated  only  by  the  sincere  desire  to  render 
God's  most  holy  Word  accessible  to  all  their  country- 
men. They  toiled  not  for  fame  or  pelf  or  any  party 
interest,  but  for  God's  glory  and  the  souls  of  men. 
They  were  in  full  and  hearty  sympathy  with  the  book 
upon  which  they  wrought.  It  was  the  guide  of  their 
lives,  the  arbiter  of  their  differences,  the  charter  of 
their  hope  for  eternity.  They  prized  it  with  reverence, 
they  loved  it  with  passion  ;  and  because  of  their  devo- 
tion to  it  not  a  few  of  them  suffered  spoiling  of  their 
goods,  bonds,  imprisonments,  and  exile,  and  some  even 
death  itself.  The  grave  purpose,  the  intense  convic- 
tions, of  such  men  lifted  them  above  all  puerilities  and 
afifectations.  It  was  not  for  them  to  seek  out  artificial 
refinement  or  strive  to  gild  refined  gold ;  nor,  on  the 
other  hand,  could  they  stoop  to  coarseness  or  slang. 
They  forgot  themselves  in  their  work,  and  hence  the 
marvellous  union  it  displays,  of  simplicity  and  majesty, 


40  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE    REVISION. 

homeliness  and  beauty.  ''  They  were  far  more  studious 
of  the  matter  than  of  the  manner;  and  there  is  no 
surer  preservative  against  writing  ill  or  more  potent 
charm  for  writing  well."  (Augustus  Hare.)  Seeking 
merely  to  furnish  to  their  fellows  the  divine  oracles  in 
an  intelligible  form,  they  not  only  did  that,  but  gave  to 
all  succeeding  generations  a  masterpiece  of  English 
composition,  one  that  shows  our  language  at  its  best, 
unfoldino;  its  varied  resources  both  of  vocabulary  and 
of  idiom,  and  offering  many  striking  specimens  of  its 
melodious  rhythm. 

Conservative  Influence  of  King  James's  Ver- 
sion.— 'No  small  regard  is  due  to  our  Bible  for  its  influ- 
ence in  preserving  our  language  from  corruption. 
Time  and  again  there  lias  been  an  influx  of  alien 
elements  introduced  by  a  capricious  fashion,  or  by 
some  able  but  unwise  leader.  But  amid  all  the  vaga- 
ries of  popular  taste,  and  the  changes  occasioned  by 
social  revolutions,  or  the  progress  of  knowledge  and 
discovery,  this  book  has  stood  like  a  massive  break- 
water, unyielding  and  invincible.  Perpetually  in  the 
hands  of  the  people,  used  in  public  and  private  worship, 
resorted  to  in  all  controversies,  employed  in  schools 
and  education,  in  short,  a  daily  companion  from  the 
cradle  to  the  grave,  it  has  so  shaped  the  tastes  and 
judgments  of  men  that,  however  for  a  time  misled, 
they  were  always  in  the  end  recalled  to  the  older  and 
better  model,  and  renewed  their  adhesion  to  the  pure 
"well  of  Knglish  undefyled." 

Other  Revisions. — That  the  book  deserves  what  has 
been  claimed  for  it  is  shown  by  its  history.  AVhen  it 
first  came  from  the  press  there  were  two  other  versions 
in  general  use.     One  of  these,  the  Bishops'  Bible,  wii 


THE   BIBLE   AS    A   CLASSIC.  41 

most  23rized  at  court  and  found,  in  all  the  cliurches ;  the 
other,  the  Genevan,  was  cherished  in  the  household  and 
the  closet  of  the  middle  classes.  [N'ow,  no  royal  edict,  no 
decree  of  convocation,  commanded  the  use  of  King 
James's  version,  yet  simply  by  its  own  merits  it  overpow- 
ered both  these  rivals,  and,  in  the  course  of  a  single  gene- 
ration, became  the  accepted  book  of  the  entire  nation.  In 
after  years  repeated  attempts  were  made  to  introduce 
a  new  translation ;  but  they  all  failed,  whether  put  forth 
by  coxcombs,  like  the  man  who  improved  "Jesus  wept" 
into  "  Jesus  burst  into  a  flood  of  tears,"  or  by  profound 
and  elegant  scholars,  such  as  Bishop  Lowth,  or  Dr. 
George  Campbell,  of  Aberdeen.  The  reason  of  the 
failure  was  not  the  perfect  correctness  of  the  author- 
ized Scripture :  no  one  claims  for  it  any  such  infalli- 
bility. The  progress  of  Biblical  knowledge  in  very 
many  directions  has  shown  the  need  of  much  correction. 
But  the  gain  of  the  modern  versions,  in  this  respect, 
was  so  counterbalanced  by  the  loss  in  style  and  tone  of 
feeling  that  the  Christian  public  would  none  of 
them ;  and  these  amended  Bibles,  or  parts  of  Bibles, 
however  loudly  heralded,  or'  under  whatever  high 
names  issued,  have  passed  out  of  recollection,  or  are 
consulted  only  by  curious  scholars. 

Present  Revision. — The  same  thing  is  shown  by  the 
principles  which  underlie  the  revision  now  going  on  in 
England  and  America.  This  is  a  very  elaborate  enter- 
prise, undertaken  under  the  highest  auspices,  and  repre- 
senting, as  far  as  possible,  all  bodies  of  English-speaking 
Christians.  In  these  respects  it  far  exceeds  anything 
of  the  kind  ever  attempted  before.  Yet  its  conductors 
announce  at  the  threshold  that  they  neither  intend  nor 
desire  a  new  translation ;  that  is  not  needed,  and  if 
4* 


42  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE   REVISION. 

accomplislied  would  prove  an  inevitable  failure.  All 
they  aim  at,  therefore,  is  to  make  only  such  corrections 
as  the  progress  of  the  language  or  of  Biblical  science 
may  render  necessary,  and  in  all  changes  to  preserve, 
as  far  as  possible,  the  very  form  and  spirit  of  the  exist- 
ing Bible.  Each  of  them  heartily  concurs  in  the  judg- 
ment pronounced  on  this  point  by  a  late  distinguished 
pervert  to  Eomanism,  Dr.  F.  W.  Faber,  with  whose 
eloquent  and  touching  words  this  paper  concludes : — 

Faber  on  King  James's  Version. — "  Wlio  will  say 
that  the  uncommon  beauty  and  marvellous  English  of 
the  Protestant  Bible  is  not  one  of  the  great  strongholds 
of  heresy  in  this  country  ?     It  lives  on  the  ear,  like 
music  that  can  never  be  forgotten,  like  the  sound  of 
church  bells,  which  the  convert  hardly  knows  how  he 
can  forego.     Its  felicities  often  seem  to  be  almost  things 
rather  than  words.     It  is  part  of  the  national  mind,  and 
the  anchor  of  national  seriousness.     Nay,  it  is  wor- 
shiped with  a  positive  idolatry,  in  extenuation  of  whose 
grote&que  fanaticism  its  intrinsic  beauty  pleads  avail- 
ingly  with  the  man  of  letters  and  the  scholar.     The 
memory  of  the  dead  passes  into  it.     The  potent  tradi- 
tions of  cliildhood  are  stereotyped  in  its  verses.     The 
power  of  all  the  griefs  and  trials  of  a  man  are  hid  beneath 
its  words.     It  is  the  representative  of  liis  best  moments, 
and  all  that  there  has  been  about  him  of  soft  and  gentle, 
and  pure  and  penitent  and  good,  speaks  to  hira  forever 
out  of  his  Protestiint  Bible.     It  is  his  sacred  thing  which 
doubt  has  never  dimmed  and  controversy  never  soiled." 


reaso:n's  for  a  new  revisio:?^  of  the 
scriptures  m  english. 

BY   THEODORE   D.    WOOLSEY,  D.D.,  LL.D., 
Ex- President  of  Yale  College. 

Valid  reasons  for  a  new  revision  of  the  Scriptures 
must  be  found,  if  they  exist,  either  in  a  better  acquaint- 
ance with  the  original  texts  than  was  possible  for  those 
who  prepared  our  authorized  English  version,  or  in  the 
advance  of  scholarship  since  the  beginning  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  or  in  the  changes  of  the  English 
language  within  the  two  centuries  and  a  half  since 
King  James's  version  appeared.  Each  of  these  consid- 
erations will  form,  as  I  understand,  the  subject  of  a 
separate  article.  It  will  not  be  expected,  therefore, 
that  the  writer  should  say  more  on  either  of  them  than 
will  be  enough  to  present  his  case  to  his  readers  as  a 
distinct  whole,  dependent  for  its  justice  and  force  on 
what  others  will  say  more  fully  and  convincingly. 

Demand  for  Revisions. — There  is,  however,  one 
other  consideration,  drawn  from  fact  and  experience, 
which  deserves  to  find  a  place  here  at  the  beginning  of 
our  remarks.  If  a  translation  of  a  book  like  the 
sacred  Scriptures  were  a  very  easy  task,  to  be  under- 
taken once  for  all — if  the  scholarship  of  the  first  ages 
after  the  conversion  of  a  nation  to  Christianity  could 
solve  all  the  problems  of  interpretation  which  they 
present — what  reason  could  there  be  for  the  repeated 
demands,  in  almost  every  country  where  Christianity 
has  gained  a  foothold,  for  revised  and  corrected  or  for 
wholly  new  translations  ?  Does  not  this  demand  show 
at  once  a  real  want,  and  a  strong  desire  to  reach  a 
better  translation  than  any  previous  age  has  produced? 

43 


44  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION. 

Various  Translations. — Let  us  be  permitted  to 
illustrate,  by  an  example  or  two,  tlie  force  of  this 
argument,  from  experience.  Origen,  the  great  Chris- 
tian schohir  of  the  third  century  after  Christ,  arranged 
in  parallel  columns  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  old  Scrip- 
tures, both  in  Hebrew  and  Greek  letters,  and  seven 
Greek  translations  by  their  side — those  of  Aquila, 
Symmachus,  the  Seventy,  Theodotion,  and  three  others, 
called  the  fifth,  sixth,  and  seventh  editions,  of  wdiich 
very  little  is  left  on  record.  In  the  Syriac  there  are 
five  or  six  versions,  or  recensions,  beginning  with  the 
Peshito,  which  goes  back  to  the  second  century.  In 
our  own  language,  the  authorized  version  of  King 
James  makes  the  ninth  translation  of  the  whole  or  of 
a  considerable  part  of  the  Scriptures,  not  to  count  quite 
a  number  since  the  Authorized  Version  appeared,  and 
for  which,  generally,  single  persons  are  responsible. 

These  illustrations  show  that  as  the  Christian  religion 
gains  firmer  hold  in  a  nation,  there  is  a  desire  felt  for  a 
more  accurate  translation  than  has  been  handed  down 
from  the  past.  They  seem  to  show  also  that  there  are 
permanent  causes  for  recensions  or  revisions  of  transla- 
tions, which  are  acknowledged,  like  our  existing  version, 
to  be,  on  the  whole,  exceedingly  good.  What  are  some 
of  these  causes  ? 

1.  First  Reason  for  a  !N'ew  Revision. — The  first  is 
the  gradual  change  to  which  languages — at  least  most 
languages — are  subject.  Old  Avords  drop  out  of  use,  or 
lose  certain  meanings,  so  as  to  puzzle  many  readers  ;  or, 
by  being  used  in  new  senses,  they  acquire  a  certain  am- 
biguity, which  needs  to  be  removed,  for  the  sake  of  the 
common  reader.  It  is  true  that  a  well-executed  version, 
like  our. English  one,  tends  to  preserve  a  language  from 


REASONS    FOR   REVISION.  45 

a  number  of  changes  which  would  otherwise  be  inev- 
itable ;  but  it  is  true,  also,  that  an  ancient  translation, 
preserved  on  account  of  the  veneration  which  is  felt 
towards  it,  may  even  do  harm  to  religion  by  obscuring 
thoughts  which  would  otherwise  be  clear. 

Elevation  of  Biblical  Style. — We  would  here  ffuard 
against  a  wrong  inference  which  might  be  drawn  from 
our  remark's,  as  if  in  a  translation  for  the  nineteenth 
century,  the  words  most  in  use  in  the  century,  and  most 
familiar  to  the  ears  of  the  people,  ought  always  to  take  the 
place  of  others  less  in  use,  which,  however,  retain  their 
place  in  the  language.  This  is  far  from  being  a  safe 
rule.  One  of  the  most  important  impressions  which  the 
"Word  of  God  makes  is  made  by  its  venerableness.  The 
dignity  and  sanctity  of  the  truth  are  supported  by  the 
elevation  of  the  style,  and  woe  be  to  the  translator  who 
should  seek  to  vulgarize  the  Bible,  on  the  plea  of  ren- 
derino;  it  more  intellio^ible.  Understood  it  must  be, 
and  this  must  be  provided  for  by  removing  the  ambi- 
guities and  obscurities  to  which  changes  in  society  and 
changes  in  the  expression  of  thought  give  rise.  But  as 
long  as  the  English  is  a  living  tongue,  the  style  of  the 
Scriptures  must  be  majestic,  and  removed  from  all  vul- 
garity. Indeed,  it  must  be  such  as  it  is  now,  with  those 
exceptions,  few  in  number,  which  time  brings  with  it, 
and  most  of  which  will  hardly  be  noticed  by  the  cursory 
reader. 

2.  Greek  Manuscripts. — A  second  reason  for  a  new 
revision  of  our  authorized  version  is  found  in  the  scanty 
knowleds^e  of  the  state,  of  the  oric:inal  text  which  was 
accessible  at  the  time  when  that  version  saw  the  light. 
The  main  object  in  attempting  to  discover  what  are  the 
texts  followed  in  manuscripts  of  the  Scriptures,  or  by 


4(3  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE    REVISION. 

early  Christian  writers  in  their  citations,  or  by  the  early 
translators  into  foreign  tongues,  is  to  ascertain,  as  far  as 
possible,  just  what  was  written  or  dictated  by  the  sacred 
'Writers.  The  scribes  and  other  authorities  to  whom  we 
owe  our  texts  were  subject  to  the  same  mistakes  with 
any  other  copyists ;  and  it  is  of  the  first  importance  that 
we  should  know  what  text,  in  any  given  case,  is  to 
be  preferred  to  other  readings.  For  the  performance 
of  this  most  laborious  task  there  were,  in  the  early  part 
of  the  seventeenth  century,  no  adequate  materials  ac- 
cessible. The  great  accumulation  of  readings,  and  the 
new  conviction  of  the  importance  of  the  critical  art,  in 
its  application  to  the  sacred  text,  began  about  the  eigh- 
teenth century.  Since  then,  above  all,  in  the  later  times, 
multitudes  of  scholars  have  devoted  themselves  to  the 
collation  of  manuscripts  and  of  early  versions.  Num- 
bers of  manuscripts,  and  among  them  some  of  the  most 
ancient,  have  been  discovered,  and  the  citations  in  the 
Fathers  have  been  examined  with  care.  The  ages  of 
manuscripts  also,  and  the  rules  for  estimating  their 
comparative  value,  are  fixed  with  greater  precision. 
The  skill  of  textual  critics,  and  the'  means  witliin  their 
reach  for  determining  the  texts  are  such  as  to  assure  us, 
in  most  cases,  what  was  the  original  reading;  and  this 
important  end  has  been  reached  by  the  zeal  and  labors 
of  men  who  have  lived  long  since  1611,  when  the  first 
edition  of  our  present  English  Bible  was  printed. 

It  may  frighten  some  of  our  readers  to  be  told  that 
there  are  many  thousand  different  readings  in  the  JSTew 
Testament,  collected  by  the  labors  of  scholars;  but 
they  ought  to  T)e  assured  that  tihe  text  is  more  certain 
by  far  than  if  there  had  been  only  as  many  hundreds, 
and  the  mass  oT  authorities  for  the  text  had  been  uncon- 
sulted. 


REASONS    FOR    REVISION.  47 

3.  Defects  in  King  James's  Version. — The  third 
reason  for  a  new  revision,  and  the  last  which  I  shall  men- 
tion, is  that  our  translators  of  the  seventeenth  century, 
in  a  great  many  instances,  misunderstood  the  sense.  To 
make  this  as  evident  as  it  may  be  made  we  should  need 
to  write  a  volume.  Such  volumes  have  been  written ; 
amonff  which  Dr.  Lisrhtfoot's  work  on  "A  Fresh  Revi- 
sion  of  the  English  New  Testament"  may  be  commended 
as  the  best.  In  this  brief  paper  we  can  only  say  that  the 
main  deficiency  in  our  translation  proceeds  from  want 
of  exact  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  languages. 
Not  only  is  the  sense  wholly  misapprehended  in  a  num- 
ber of  instances — as  could  scarcely  fail  of  heing  the  case 
— hut  a  perception  of  the  finer  rules  of  grammar  and 
interpretation  was  wanting.  In  the  use  of  the  article,  of 
the  tenses  and  modes  of  verbs,  and  of  participles,  and 
in  a  great  variety  of  other  instances,  the  modern  scholar 
hy  his  revisions  can  repair  and  beautify  the  building 
reared  by  the  older  scholars.  Thus,  while  no  book  can 
be  written  more  fitted  in  style  and  expression  to  do  its 
work,  more  truly  English,  more  harmonious,  more  sim- 
ply majestic,  than  our  authorized  revision;  new  revisers 
of  the  text  and  the  version  may  hope — by  their  salutary 
changes — to  contribute  to  its  preservation,  in  essentially 
the  same  form  which  it  has  always  had,  for  generations 
yet  to  come. 


THE    CURRENT    VERSION    OF    THE    SCRIP- 
TURES, AS  COMPARED  WITH  OL'R 
PRESEi^T  NEEDS. 

BY   G.    EMLEN    HARE,    D.D.,  L.L.D., 

Professor  of  Biblical  Learning  in  the  Divinity  School  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  Philadelphia. 

The  current  version  of  tlie  Scriptures  is  commonly 
known  as  the  "  Authorized."  The  epithet  may  have 
orio^inated  in  the  fact  that  the  book  bears  on  its  title 
page  the  words  "Appointed  to  be  read  in  churclies." 
But  that  the  appointment  thus  mentioned — that  of  the 
monarch  reigning  in  England  at  the  time  of  the  publi- 
cation— was  not  the  source  of  the  authority  of  the 
version,  is  manifest  from  the  fact  that  the  ^ook  did  not 
come  into  general  use  in  English  churches  for  some- 
thing like  half  a  century  after  the  time  the  appoint- 
ment was  made.  .The  authority  of  the  work  came 
from  its  superiority  to  the  translations  previously  in 
use  and  the  general  recognition  which  this  superiority 
deserved  and  obtained. 

Two  hundred  and  sixty-eight  years  have  intervened 
between  the  publication  of  the  English  Bible  and  the 
present  time.  During  this  interval  multitudes  of  words 
have  changed  their  meaning.  The  phrases  "  by,"  "  by 
and  by,"  and  "  charger,"  may  serve  as  .examples.  St. 
Paul  says,  in  the  Authorized  Version  (1  Cor.  iv,  4),  "I 
know  nothing  by  myself,  yet  am  I  not  herel)y  justified." 
This  seems  incongruous,  because  "  to  know  nothing  by 
one's  self"  means  "  to  know  nothing  originally  or  inde- 
pendently." In  tlie  older  English,  "  to  know  nothing 
by  one's  self"  meant  "  to  know  nothing  lying  at  one's 

46 


CURRENT   VERSION    OF   THE   SCRIPTURES.  49 

door,"  and  this  is  the  only  sense  of  which  the  Greek 
words  in  the  passage  which  seems  so  incongruous  are 
susceptible.  He  who  reads  the  Gospel  of  St.  Mark  in 
Greek  gets  a  vivid  idea  of  the  promptitude,  the  ten- 
dency to  strike  while  the  iron  is  hot,  which  cunning  and 
malice  may  engender.  A  princess  enters  the  banquet- 
ing room  of  a  king,  enchants  him  by  the  grace  of  her 
dancing,  and  evokes  from  his  tipsy  rashness  the  promise, 
"  Ask  what  thou  wilt  and  I  will  give  it  thee,  even  to  the 
half  of  my  kingdom."  (St.  Mark  vi,  22.)  The  damsel, 
after  consulting  with  her  mother,  returns  to  the  ban- 
queting room,  points,  no  doubt,  to  the  dishes  on  the 
banqueting  table,  and  says,  "  Give  me  forthwith,  on  a 
dish,  the  head  of  John  the  Baptist."  In  the  English 
Bible  the  speech  runs,  "  Give  me  by  and  by,  in  a 
charger."  "  By  and  by  "  means,  in  our  century,  a  time 
somewhat  distant  from  the  present;  the  phrase  has 
ceased  to  mean  "  forthwith."  A  charger,  in  modern 
English,  signifies  a  war  horse ;  the  word  has  ceased  to 
signify  a  dish  or  platter  from  which  plates  are  charged 
or  supplied.  If  the  Bible  is  intended  for  the  less  edu- 
cated of  the  Christian  Church  it  needs,  in  many  places, 
to  be  translated  out  of  the  older  into  the  later  English. 
Within  the  two  hundred  and  sixty-eight  years  which 
have  elapsed  since  the  publication  of  the  Current  Ver- 
sion Biblical  learning  has  advanced  with  a  progress 
comparable  to  that  which  has  obtained  in  other 
departments  of  learning.  Ten  times  as  many  manu- 
scripts of  the  !N'ew  Testament  as  were  known  to  our 
venerable  translators  have  been  discovered  since  their 
time,  and  that  kind  of  criticism  which  judges  of  the 
age  of  ancient  manuscripts  and  determines  the  true 
reading  where  copies  ditter,  has  been  reduced  to  a 
science.  In  many  places  textual  criticism  is  unanimous, 
5 


50  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE    REVISION. 

at  the  present  day,  in  favor  of  readings  more  or  less 
different  from  those  which  the  authors  of  the  present 
version  followed.  "  Alexander,  the  coppersmith,  did 
me  much  evil :  the  Lord  reward  him  according  to  his 
works."  (2  Tim.  iv,  14.)  The  true  reading  yields  the 
sense,  "  Alexander,  the  coppersmith,  did  me  much  evil ; 
the  Lord  will  reward  him  according  to  his  works." 

St.  Paul,  speaking  of  Ahraham,  says,  "  He  con- 
sidered not  his  own  hody  now  dead,  .  .  .  neither  yet 
the  deadness  of  Sarah's  womb  :  he  staggered  not  at 
the  promise  of  God  through  unbelief."  (Eom.  iv,  19.) 
This  statement  conflicts  with  the  histor}^  in  the  book 
of  Genesis.  This  history  is  so  far  from  representing 
Abraham  as  not  considering  at  the  time  mentioned, 
that  it  declares  that  Abraham  said  in  his  heart,  "  Shall 
a  child  be  born  unto  him  that  is  a  hundred  years  old  ? 
and  shall  Sarah,  that  is  ninety  years  old,  bear  ?"  (Gen. 
xvii,  17.)  Textual  critics  agree  in  reading  the  lan- 
guage of  St.  Paul  without  the  word  "  not."  They  so 
determine  the  text  as  to  translate  "  He  considered  his 
own  body  now  dead  and  the  deadness  of  Sarah's  womb, 
but  staggered  not  at  the  promise  of  God  through  unbe- 
lief." Such  decisions  of  critics  are  made  in  accordance 
with  rules  which  recognize  tlie  more  difficult  of  two 
readings  as  being,  cceteris  paribus,  the  more  Avorthy  of 
acceptance.  Ought  not  English  readers  to  hjive  the 
benefit  of  their  knowledge  ? 

Our  translators  say,  in  their  noble  preface,  that 
they  have  not  been  studious  of  an  "  identity  of  phras- 
ing;" that  is  to  say,  they  acknowledge  that  they  have 
not  been  careful  to  render  a  Hebrew  or  Greek  word  by 
the  same  English  phrase  in  the  different  places  where 
the  Hebrew  or  Greek  word  occurs.  Yet  an  identity 
of  phrasing  is  often  necessary  as  a  clue  to  the  meaning. 


CURRENT   VERSION   OF   THE   SCRIPTURES.  51 

Moses  saw  an  Egyptian  smiting  a  Hebrew  and  he  slew 
the  Egyptian,  says  the  English  Bible.  (Ex.  ii,  11, 12.)  In 
this  sentence  the  same  Hebrew  word  is  translated  in  the 
first  instance  by  the  word  "  smiting,"  and  in  the  second 
instance  by  the  word  "  slew."  If  the  Hebrew  word  had 
been  translated  "  slaying  "  in  the  place  where  it  is  trans- 
lated "  smiting  "  the  meaning  would  have  been  more 
perceptible  and  the  act  of  Moses  less  liable  to  miscon- 
struction. In  the  earlier  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
a  remarkable  person  appears .  under  the  name  of  the 
"  Angel  of  the  Lord."  For  example,  when  the  cove- 
nant with  Abraham  was  to  be  ratified  the  language  of 
Genesis  is,  "  The  Angel  of  the  Lord  called  unto  Abra- 
ham, ...  in  blessing  I  will  bless  thee,  and  in  multiply- 
ing I  will  multiply  thy  seed ....  thy  seed  shall  possess 
the  gate  of  his  enemies ;  and  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed."  (Gen.  xxii,  15, 17,  18.) 
Here  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  appears  as  covenanting. 
In  Exodus  the  same  person  under  the  same  name 
appears  as  covenanted,  '^  I  send  an  Angel  before  thee, 
.  .  .  beware  of  him,  .  .  .  for  my  name  is  in  him." 
There  is  a  remarkable  passage  in  the  book  of  Mal- 
achi  (iii,  1),  which,  if  translated  with  the  identity  of 
phrasing  that  our  translators  disregarded,  would  run, 
"the  Lord  whom  ye  seek  shall  suddenly  come  to' his 
temple,  even  the  Angel  of  the  Covenant,  whom  ye 
delight  in."  Unhappily,  in  this  passage  of  Malachi 
the  word  "  messenger "  is  used  where  the  Hebrew 
word  is  the  same  as  that  which  is  rendered  "  Angel " 
in  the  places  of  Genesis  and  Exodus.  He  who  reads 
the  Old  Testament  in  the  original  may  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  (he  Angel  of  the  Covenant,  promised 
by  Malachi,  was  to  be  the  same  being  as  had  appeared 
in  the  Pentateuch,  one  while  as  covenanting,  another 


52  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION. 

while  as  covenanted.  The  common  reader  ought  to 
have  the  benefit  of  an  identity  of  phrasing  where  this 
identity  is  necessary  in  order  to  identify  the  thing  or 
person  meant. 

The  priest's  lips  should  keep  knowledge,  that  the 
people  may  seek  the  law  at  his  mouth.  In  1870  priests 
awoke  to  this  truth.  The  Convocation  of  Canterbury, 
the  oldest  synod  in  English  speaking  Christendom, 
appointed  a  Committee  to  revise  the  current  version 
of  the  Scriptures.  This  Committee  was  to  make.no 
chano-e  for  the  sake  of  chano-e.  It  was  not  to  desert 
the  style  of  the  English  Bible.  It  was  to  invite  the 
cooperation  of  Biblical  scholars  of  different  nations  and 
creeds,  and  was  to  give  ten  years  to  the  important 
project.  Eight  of  these  ten  years  have  elapsed.  Scholars 
of  this  country,  as  well  as  scholars  of  Great  Britain,  are 
engaged  in  the  work.  What  will  be  the  issue  ?  The 
Latin  version  of  the  Scriptures,  made  by  Jerome,  was 
for  a  thousand  years  the  standard  Bible  of  Western 
Christendom;  Yet  the  making  of  it  was  earnestly 
opposed,  and  the  work  did  not  establish  itself  in  general 
acceptance  for  two  centuries.  May  the  Revision  at 
])resent  in  progress  meet  with  earlier  success :  may 
Christian  people  give  the  work  the  benefit  of  their 
prayers,  Jind  when  it  appears  give  the  book  a  candid 
reception ! 


THE  HEBREW   TEXT   OF    THE   OLD   TESTA- 
MENT. 

BY   HOWARD    OSGOOD,   D.D., 
Professor  of  Hebrew,  in  Rochester  Theological  Seminary. 

The  History  of  the  Text. — The  Hebrew  text,  as 
we  now  find  it  in  the  best  editions  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, is  a  reprint,  with  few  and  slight  excejDtions,  of  the 
text  edited  by  Jewish  scholars,  and  printed  by  Bom- 
berg,  at  Venice,  in  1525,  and  reprinted  by  him,  with 
corrections,  in  1547.  In  some  of  the  subsequent  edi- 
tions of  the  text,  a  few  manuscripts  and  the  preceding 
printed  editions  were  compared,  and  errors  corrected; 
but  until  the  latter  part  of  the  last  century  there  was  no 
text  published  whicli  was  founded  upon  a  large  com- 
parison of  manuscripts. 

Bomberg's  Hebrew  text  was  accompanied  bj*  Eab- 
binic  commentaries,  and  was  designed  for  the  use  of  the 
Jews,  since  few  Christians  at  that  day  understood 
Hebrew,  and  still  fewer  were  acquainted  with  Rabbinic. 
This  text  enjoys  the  great  advantage  of  being  acknowl- 
edged as  the  received  text  by  Jews  and  Christians  alike. 
That  it  is  worthy  of  great  confidence  is  the  united  tes- 
timony of  critics,  and  one  of  the  latest  and  most  learned, 
Strack,  makes  stronger  statements  in  favor  of  the  pre^ 
servation  of  the  correct  reading  in  this  text  than  some 
of  his  predecessors,  or  than  is  welcome  to  some  who 
cannot  but  admire  his  preeminent  ability  and  learning. 

We  do  not  know  what  or  how  many  manuscripts 
were  used  by  the  editors  of  this  text,  but  from  the 
preface  to  the  Bible  of  1525,  and  from  the  carefulness 
5*  53 


64  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE   REVISION. 

ill  editing,  we  are  assured  that  the  principal  editor, 
Jacob  ben  Chayim,  was  as  thoroughly  skilled  in  the 
text  as  in  the  then  known  various  readings ;  and  that 
he  was  as  reverent  to  the  text  as  he  was  learned.  What- 
ever manuscripts  were  used,  they  were  in  all  proba- 
bility of  a  late  date,  written  under  the  strict  and  micro- 
scopic rules  of  the  Talmud,  and  accompanied  with  the 
X^arious  readings  of  the  Masorites.  In  respect  to  age, 
no  extant  Hebrew  manuscript  can  compare  with  the 
Sinaitic  and  Vatican  Greek  manuscripts;  and  3^et,  in 
verification  of  the  text,  the  Hebrew  possesses  a  line  of 
witnesses  that  extends  a  long  way  down  the  centuries, 
and  who  have  sought  to  guard  the  text  with  scrupulous 
care. 

Wlien  the  privileges  of  the  great  Jewish  schools  in 
Babylonia  were  restricted  by  the  Persian  kings,  and  the 
greater  part  of  the  Talmud  had  been  collected,  the 
intense  activity  of  the  Jewish  brain,  and  Jewish  devotion 
to  the  very  letter  of  the  word,  were  directed  to  the  nota- 
tion of  all  diversities  in  the  traditional  reading  of  the 
text,  as  to  consonants,  vowels,  accents,  words,  the  com- 
mencement and  close  of  verses  and  divisions  of  the 
text,  as  well  as  to  any  unusual  marks  found  in  manu- 
scripts. They  marked  with  all  care  mistakes  in  any 
of  these  points,  but  never  altered  the  text.  Even 
whore  the  mistake  was  evident  and  trivial — a  letter 
slightly  out  of  pL^icc,  or  upside  down,  or  too  small,  or. 
too  large,  or  a  variation  in  the  writing  of  a  word — they 
did  not  presume  to  change  the  text.  Tliis  honest 
(Fealing  with  the  text  is  represented  in  our  I^ibles  to-day 
by  the  continuance  of  the  mistake  and  its  attendant 
corrective  margin.  These  textual  criticisms  were 
originally  contained  in  separate  works,  but  were  after- 
wards transferred  to  the  margin  of  the  manuscripts  of 


HEBREW    TEXT    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT.  55 

the  Hebrew  Old  Testament,  and  by  the''  labors  of 
scholars  of  our  day  they  are  again  being  collected  and 
published  in  separate  works. 

In  the  era  of  the  Talmudists,  before  a.d.  500,  very 
strict  rules  were  enjoined  upon  copyists.  These  rules 
cover  all  the  minutise  of  composition,  and  reveal  a 
method  of  dealing  with  the  text  that  must  have  been 
traditional.  The  attention  the  Talmudists  themselves 
bestowed  upon  the  text  is  shown  by  their  enumeration 
of  the  verses,  words  and  letters  of  each  book,  and  their 
designation  of  the  middle  verse,  word  and  letter  of  the 
book. 

Within  this  same  period  Jerome,  in  his  translation, 
corrects  renderings  of  the  Septuagint,  and  gives  us  a 
faithful  representation  of  the  text  then  received  in 
Palestine.  ^NTo  large  additions  or  defections  from  that 
text  are  found  in  our  own. 

The  boast  of  Josephus,  that  "  during  so  many  ages 
as  have  already  passed  no  one  has  been  so  bold  as 
either  to  add  anything  to  them  "  (the  sacred  books), 
"  to  take  anything  from  them,  or  to  make  any  change 
in  them,"  seems  to  be  justified  by  the  minute  tradi- 
tional rules  and  carefulness  of  the  later  Jews. 

All  this  shows  us  that  for  fifteen  centuries,  at  least, 
it  was  a  religious  duty  with  the  Jews  to  preserve,  with 
all  exactness,  the  sacred  text  as  received  by  them :  a 
duty  which  they  zealously  sought  to  perform.  When 
the  Hebrew  language  was  unknown  by  Christians, 
when  the  Jew  was  under  the  harrow  of  unresting 
persecution  and  his  name  a  byword,  he  was  with 
patient  fidelity  keeping  watch  over  the  text,  unknown 
to  all  but  himself,  and  preserving  a  priceless  inherit- 
ance for  the  coming  centuries.  As  respects  the 
Hebrew  text,  "  Japheth  dwells  in  the  tents  of  Shem." 


56  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE    REVISION. 

The  Accuracy  of  the  Present  Text. — That  there 
are  passages  where  the  text  has  suffered  from  wrong 
transcription,  w^iere  there  are  insuperable  difficulties 
or  slight  mistakes,  where  manuscripts  differ,  and 
versions  give  a  rendering  at  variance  with  the  present 
text,  is  well  known  to  every  Hebrew  scholar.  If  with 
the  superior  advantages  of  the  printing  press  for  the 
maintenance  of  a  given  text,  with  our  Bible  societies 
and  multitudes  of  critical  readers  of  the  Ens-lish  Bible, 
we  have  not  preserved  one  and  the  same  text  in  all  the 
editions,  is  it  a  matter  of  astonishment  that  manuscripts 
vary  ?  Is  it  not  a  matter  of  greater  astonishment  if 
they  agree  in  most  respects,  written,  as  they  were, 
centuries  apart?  But  these  places  where  error  has 
crept  in  are  by  no  means  so  numerous  as  some  critics 
would  have  us  believe.  Dr.  S.  Davidson,  a  very 
competent  critic,  in  his  "  Revision  of  the  Hebrew 
Text,"  cites  between  seven  and  eight  thousand  places 
where  manuscripts  and  versions  differ  from  our  text. 
These  changes,  for  the  far  greater  part,  refer  to  the 
different  modes  of  writing  or  accentuating  the  same 
word;  they  include  the  thousand  or  more  marginal 
notes  of  the  Jewish  mediaeval  scholars,  the  changes  of 
the  vowel  by  the  accent,  etc. 

The  Old  Testament  contains  more  than  three  times 
as  much  text  as  the  New  Testament,  and  if  we  })ut  the 
diversities  of  readings  in  the  Old  Testament  at  ten 
tliousand,  still  this  would  be  but  one-fiftocnth  as  many 
as  those  found  in  the  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. As  the  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  various 
readings  of  the  New  Testament  dwindle  to  a  compara- 
tively very  small  number  when  you  apply  the  touch- 
stone of  a  chanece  of  sii^nification,  so  the  Old  Testament 
ten  thousand  dwindle  at  the  same  test.     It  should  be 


HEBREW   TEXT    OF   THE    OLD    TESTAMENT.  57 

remembered  that  if  for  the  criticism  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment we  possessed  a  critical  apparatus  as  full  as  that 
for  the  New  the  number  of  diversities  might  be  largely 
increased. 

That  the  true  text  maybe  established  in  every  part 
and  portion  of  the  Word  must  be  the  aim  of  every 
earnest  student.  The  means  for  establishing  the  text 
are  the  cohation  of  all  known  manuscripts ;  the  wise 
use  of  the  results  of  Jewish  criticism  of  the  text  in  the 
earlier  centuries;  the  early  versions,  and  the  printed 
editions. 

The  utmost  diligence  in  the  search  for  ancient 
Hebrew  manuscripts  has  failed  to  bring  to  light  any 
manuscript  of  which  we  can  be  certain  that  its  age  is 
greater  than  a  thousand  years,  though  some  have  been 
discovered  for  which  a  higher  antiquity  is  claimed. 
The  Herculean  labors  of  Kennicott  and  of  De  Eossi  in 
the  last  century  have  not  resulted  in  establishing 
beyond  controversy,  among  critics,  any  material  change 
in  the  text.  They  have  added  but  little  to  what  was 
known  before.  In  this  century  Frankel,  Frensdorf, 
Pinsker,  Strack,  and  others  have  brought  out  a  greater 
number  of  the  diversities  marked  by  the  early  Jewish 
scholars,  and  the  forthcoming  work  of  Ginsburg 
promises  to  be  a  long  step  in  advance  in  this  direction. 

It  is  proposed  by  some  critics  to  use  the  Talmud,  the 
so-called  Chaldee  translations,  and  the  Septuagint,  to 
restore  the  Hebrew  in  places  where  they  differ  from  it. 
But  to  restore  the  text  in  doubtful  places  we  must  have 
exact  knowledge  and  abundant  proof.  Some  great 
scholars  have  tried  their  hand  at  restoration,  and  now 
serve  the  excellent  purpose  of  warnings.  Capellus, 
Houbigant,  Kennicott,  Lowth,  and  some  in  this 
century,  have  wasted  their  strength  in  mending  the 


58  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE    REVISION. 

text  to  suit  their  views,  and  tlieil-  work  is  rejected  by 
their  critics.  That  which  seems  perfectly  feasible 
proves,  in  the  doing  of  it,  to  be  exceedingly  difficult. 
To  attempt  to  restore  the  Hebrew  text  by  a  means 
that  we  are  not  entirely  sure  of  is  certainly  not  wise. 
J^either  the  Talmud,  nor  any  one  of  the  Chaldee  trans- 
lations, nor  the  Septuagint,  has  been  submitted  to  a 
thorough  critical  revision.  One  of  the  crying  needs  of 
Old  Testament  study  is  a  trustworthy  edition  of  the 
Septuagint,  and  until  that  is  obtained  the  Septuagint 
cannot  safely  be  used,  as  of  itself  a  strong  argument  for 
the  change  of  text. 

Thouirh  scholars  have  not  now  at  their  command  the 
means  to  enter  upon  a  thorough  critical  revision  of  the 
Hebrew  text,  yet  it  is  probable  that  the  work  will  not 
be  long  delayed,  for  never  before  were  there  so  many 
earnest  and  well  qualified  students  engaged  upon  this 
subject,  and  we  may  look  forward  with  hope  and  confi- 
dence to  their  results:  with  hope  that  light  will  be 
thrown  upon  difficult  passages ;  with  confidence  that 
no  great  changes  will  be  found  necessary. 

The  Duty  of  a  Translator. — The  labors  of  past 
centuries  have  proved  that  our  present  text,  as  a  whole, 
is  worthy  of  all  confidence.  The  translator  is  not  to 
sup[)ose  an  error  where  he  finds  a  difiiculty.  The 
error  must  be  unmistakably  proved  before  he  concedes 
it.  We  have  numerous  instances  of  the  assumption  of 
error  in  the  text  because  the  student  meets  with  a 
difficulty  that  seems  to  him  insui)erable.  There  is  a 
striking  example  of  this  in  a  writer  on  the  orthodox 
side  asserting  aTi  interpolation  and  utter  error  in 
Deuteronomy,  while  a  critic,  who  professes  himself  by 
no  means  orthodox,  argues  stoutly  against  the  suppo- 


HEBREW    TEXT    OF   THE   OLD    TESTAMENT.  59 

sition  of  error  in  the  text,  and  has  all  the  critical  evi- 
dence on  his  side. 

^N'or  is  the  translator  to  make  his  text.  There  are 
some  who  are  capable  of  the  double  work  of  accurate 
textual  criticism  and  translating  the  text  obtained,  but 
they  are  very  few.  The  translator  is  to  keep  with  all 
faithfuhiess  to  the  text  the  best  scholarship  brings  to 
him,  and  he  will  find  all  his  energies  tasked  to  the 
utmost  to  represent  that  most  exactly  and  acceptably 
in  his  own  tongue.  Where  there  can  be  no  doubt  of 
an  error  in  the  text,  then  the  text  and  margin  of  the 
translation  must  tell  the  story. 


HEBREW  PHILOLOGY  AKD  BIBLICAL 
SCIEJSrCE. 


SHALL  THE  AUTHORIZED  VERSION  KEEP  PACE  WITH  THE 

ADVANCES  MADE  IN  HEBREW  PHILOLOGY  AND 

BIBLICAL  SCIENCE? 


BY   THE   EEV.    W.    HENRY   GREEN,    D.D., 

Professor  of  Oriental  and  Old  Testament  Literature  in  the  Theological 
Seminary  at  Princeton,  N.  J. 

Advances  in  Philology  and  Biblical  Science. — 
Moses  strictly  cliarged  the  people,  "  Ye  shall  not  add 
unto  the  word  which  I  command  you,  neither  shall  ye 
diminish  aught  from  it"  (Deut.  iv,  2;  xii,  32).  And 
almost  the  last  utterance  of  Holy  Scripture — liev.  xxii, 
18,  19 — is  a  like  solemn  admonition,  neither  to  add 
unto,  nor  to  take  away  from,  the  words  which  God  had 
revealed.  If,  then,  it  is  the  imperative  duty  of  the 
Church  to  give  the  heavenly  oracles  to  men,  eaxAi  in 
his  own  language,  it  is  equally  her  duty  to  give  them 
to  men  in  a  pure  and  unadulterated  form.  The 
millions  in  hoth  hemispheres  who  speak  the  English 
tongue  are  entitled  to  receive  the  Bible  in  a  form 
which  represents  the  inspired  original  with  the  utmost 
accuracy  that  it  is  possible  to  attain.  This  has  always 
been  recognized  in  the  history  of  our  English  version 
thus  far,  which,  as  at  present  authorized,  is  the  result 
of  several  successive  revisions,  each  l)eiiig  an  advance 
upon  its  predecessor.  When  the  question  is  raised 
whether  the  time  has  now  arrived  for  a  fresh  revision 
of  the  English  Bible,  one  important  consideration 
affecting  the  answer  to  be  given  is  to  be  found  in  the 
immense  strides  taken  in  Biblical  scholarship  since  the 

60 


HEBREW    PHILOLOGY   AND    BIBLICAL   SCIENCE.  61 

reign  of  King  James.  The  object  of  this  brief  paper 
is  to  indicate  this  in  a  few  particulars  relating  to  the 
Old  Testament. 

Hebrew  Philology  in  1611. — Hebrew  studies  were 
then  in  their  infancy,  and  the  entire  science  of  Semitic 
philology  has  been  developed  since.  When  the  first 
edition  of  the  Authorized  Version  appeared,  in  1611, 
the  elder  Buxtorf  had  just  issued  his  larger  Hebrew 
grammar,  in  1609,  his  smaller  grammar  having  been 
published  in  1605,  and  his  Hebrew  lexicon  in  1607. 
Buxtorf 's  Hebrew  Concordance  first  saw  the  light  in 
1632.  The  two  Buxtorfs,  father  and  son,  though  men 
of  immense  learning  and  indefatigable  industry,  repre- 
sent the  first  stage  of  investigation  into  the  structure 
and  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  language.  They  brought 
together  all  that  could  be  gathered  from  Rabbinical 
lore  and  from  traditional  interpretations.  But  there 
their  work  ended.  Since  their  time  the  knowledge  of 
Hebrew  has  been  greatly  increased  by  the  comparative 
study  of  the  kindred  dialects,  the  Syriac,  Arabic  and 
Ethiopic;  the  meanings  of  many  of  its  words  have 
been  more  satisfactorily  established,  and  its  various 
constructions  have  been  elucidated.  A  long  list  of 
able  lexicographers,  from  Castellus  to  Gesenius  and 
Fuerst,  and  of  distinguished  grammarians,  from  Schul- 
tens  to  Ewald,  have  been  pushing  their  researches 
more  and  more  thoroughly  into  this  venerable  and 
sacred  tongue.  And  commentators  without  end, 
approaching  the  subject  from  every  different  point  of 
view,  and  of  widely  dissimilar  opinions,  have  minutely 
discussed  every  word  and  sentence  of  the  sacred  text, 
and  labored  with  various  success  to  bring  out  the  full- 
ness of  its  meaning.  The  great  polyglotts,  particularly 
6 


62  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE   REVISION. 

that  of  Paris  in  1645,  and  that  of  London  in  1657,  set 
the  old  Syriac  and  Arabic  versions  alongside  of  the 
Hebrew  text,  with  a  view  to  ready  comparison  and  aid 
to  interpretation,  as  Buxtorf's  Rabbinical  Bible,  in 
1618,  had  done  with  the  Chaldee  targums  and  the 
comments  of  the  Rabbins. 

Masoretic  Text. — The  extensive  and  laborious  col- 
lections of  Hebrew  manuscripts  by  Houbigant,  Kenni- 
cott,  and  De  Rossi  have  done  little  more  than  establish 
the  substantial  correctness  of  the  received  Masoretic 
text.  And  the  long  and  earnest  discussion  relative  to 
the  Hebrew  vowels  has  resulted  in  proving,  if  not  their 
originality,  at  least  their  accuracy.  We  stand  upon 
precisely  the  same  text,  therefore,  as  King  James's 
translators  used,  only  with  a  better  knowledge  of  its 
value. 

ISTeed  of  Improvement  in  the  Version  of  1611. — 
But  the  helps  to  a  better  understanding  of  this  text 
have  accumulated  immensely.  Besides  the  philological 
aids  already  referred  to,  there  is  the  increased  knowl- 
edge of  sacred  localities,  and  of  the  natural  history 
and  archaeology  of  the  Bible,  derived  from  travels 
and  explorations  in  the  Holy  Land,  and  from  the  monu- 
ments exhumed  in  Assyria,  Egypt  and  elsewhere. 
This,  of  course,  assists  us  in  the  comprehension  of 
passages  in  which  such  objects  arc  referred  to,  and 
consequently  enables  us  to  translate  them  with  greater 
accuracy  and  precision. 

Geograpuical  Errors. — It  would  be  clearly  impos- 
sible, in  a  popular  article  of  a  few  columns,  to  give  an 
accurate  conception  of  what  has  been  accomplished,  in 


HEBREW    PHILOLOGY    AND    BIBLICAL    SCIENCE.  63 

these  various  lines  of  scholarship,  toward  the  elucida- 
tion of  the  Old  Testament,  and  of  the  extent  to  which 
this  renders  it  possible  now  to  improve  a  translation 
made  more  than  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago.  Only 
a  few  illustrations  can  now  he  attempted,  taken  very 
much  at  random.  Thus,  many  geographical  terms  re- 
quire correction.  For  example,  "  the  river  of  Egypt," 
j^umhers  xxxiv,  5,  and  elsewhere,  would  naturally  lead 
one  to  think  of  the  Mle ;  it  is  not  this,  however,  which 
is  intended,  but  an  insignificant  stream  that  bounds 
Egypt  on  the  east,  "the  brook  of  Egypt."  The 
"  Palestiija  "  of  Isaiah  xiv,  29-31,  and  the  "  Palestine  " 
of  Joel  iii,  4,  is  simply  "  Philistia,"  the  territory 
occupied  by  the  Phihstines.  The  second  river  of  the 
garden  of  Eden  did  not  compass  the  "  land  of  Ethiopia," 
but  that  of  "  Gush,"  settled  by  a  people  so  called  from 
their  progenitor.  Ezekiel  xxix,  10 ;  xxx,  6,  does  not 
speak  of  desolating  Egypt  "  from  the  tower  of  Syene 
even  unto  the  border  of  Ethiopia,"  for  Syene  was  itself 
on  that  border,  but  "  from  Migdol  unto  Syene," 
i.e.,  from  the  extreme  north  to  the  extreme  south  of 
Egypt,  "  even  unto  the  border  of  Ethiopia."  The 
"  mount  Ephraim  "  of  Josh,  xxiv,  33,  and  elsewhere,  is 
not  a  single  summit,  but  an  elevated  tract,  ''  the  hill 
country  of  Ephraim."  "  The  valley  "  of  Josh,  xi,  16, 
should  be  "  the  lowland ;  "  "  the  south,"  Gen.  xii,  9, 
and  elsewhere,  is  not  simply  the  general  designation  of 
a  point  of  the  compass,  but  the  name  of  a  definite  tract 
of  country,  and  as  such  should  begin  with  a  capital 
letter— "the  South."  The  "rough  valley"  of  Deut. 
xxi,  4,  should  be  "a  valley  with  an  everflowing  stream." 
The  "nation  scattered  and  peeled,"  "whose  land  the 
rivers  have  spoiled,"  Isa.  xviii,  2,  should  be  the 
"  nation   tall    and   shaven,"    "  whose  land   the   rivers 


04  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE    REVISION. 

divide."  Samud's  father  was  not  "  an  Eplirathite," 
1  Sam.  i,  1,  as  though  he  were  from  Ephrata  or  Beth- 
lehem, but  "  an  Ephraimitc,"  so  reckoned  because  he 
resided  in  the  territory  of  Ephraim,  though  descended 
from  Levi. 

Errors  in  Proper  Kames. — Proper  names  have  some- 
times been  mistaken  for  common  nouns  o;*  other  parts 
of  speech,  and  translated  accordingly  ;  and,  conversely, 
words  which  should  have  been  translated  are  retained  as 
though  they  were  proper  names.  Thus,  ''  the  house  of 
God,"  Judges  xx,  26,  should  be  "  Bethel ;"  "  an  hollow 
place  that  was  in  the  jaw,"  Judges  xv,  19,  should  be  "  the 
hollow  place  that  is  in  Lehi.;  "  "  populous  Xo,"  ]^ah.  iii, 
8,  should  be  "  ^o- Amnion ;"  "  an  heifer  of  three  years 
old,"  Isa.  XV,  5,  should  have  been  left  untranslated;  so 
should  "  what  he  did,"  ^N'um.  xxi,  14.  On  the  contrary, 
"  the  book  of  Jasher,"  2  Sam.  i,  18,  is  not  by  an  author 
of  that  name,  but  is  simply  the  book  of  the  upright. 
"  Rab-saris  "  and  "  Rab-mag,"  Jer.  xxxix,  3,  are  not 
names  of  men,  but  titles  of  office.  "  Belial  "  is  not  the 
name  of  an  evil  spirit,  but  "  men  of  Belial  "  ought  to 
be  rendered  "  worthless  "  or  "  base  men."  "  Iluzzab," 
Xah.  ii,  7,  is  not  a  personification  of  Mneveh,  or  a 
name  of  its  queen,  but  a  declaration  that  the  fate  of 
the  city  ''  is  decided."  "  Sheth,"  iN'um.  xxiv,  17,  should 
be  "tumult;"  '' Bajith,"  Isa.  xv,  2,  should  be  the 
''  house  "  or  "  idol  temple  ;  "  "  Gammadims,"  Ezek. 
xxvii,  11,  should  be  "  warriors;"  "  Pannag,"  ver.  17,  is 
not  a  region  of  country,  but  a  species  of  confection; 
and  there  was  no  such  place  as  "  Metheg-ammah," 
2  Sam.  viii,  1. 

Mistakes  of  the  Meaning. — A  few  instances  occur 
in  which  words  of  a  peculiar  formation  have  been  en- 


HEBREW    PHILOLOGY   AND    BIBLICAL    SCIENCE.  G5 

tirelj  mistaken  by  our  translators,  and  divided  into  two 
words  when  they  are  in  reality  one.  Thus,  the  word 
translated  "  thick  clay,"  Hab.  ii,  6,  is  not  a  compound 
term  yielding  this  sense,  but  a  reduplicated  form  from 
a  single  root,  and  means  "  pledges,"  or  goods  taken  in 
pledge  by  an  extortionate  creditor;  and  "shameful 
spewing,"  ver.  16,  is  but  a  single  word  meaning  "  igno- 
miny." The  awkward  expression,  Hos.  iv,  18,  ''  her 
rulers  with  shame  do  love.  Give  ye,"  should  be  ren- 
dered, "  her  rulers  are  in  love  with  shame."  The 
"  scape  goat "  of  Lev.  xvi,  8,  is  one  word,  not  two,  and 
has  no  reference  to  the  goat  at  all. 

The  cases  are  frequent  in  which  the  meanings  of 
words  are  altogether  mistaken,  although  the  forms  are 
not  misconceived  nor  the  words  improperly  divided. 
Thus,  the  word  translated  "  avenging,"  Judges  v,  2, 
means  "  leaders ;  "  "  the  plain  of  Moreh,"  Gen.  xii, 
6,  ought  to  be  "  the  oak  of  Moreh ;  "  "  the  groves,"  so 
frequently  spoken  of  in  connection  with  idolatrous 
services,  as  Ex.  xxxiv,  13,  were  not  groves,  but  upright 
pillars.  Job.  xxvi,  13,  does  not  speak  of  the  "  crooked," 
nor  Isaiah  xxvii,  1,  of  the  "  piercing "  serpent ;  the 
epithet,  which  is  the  same  in  both  cases,  is  "  fleet." 
The  psalmist  does  not  say,  Ps.  Ixxi,  22,  "  I  will  sing 
with  the  harp,"  but  "I  will  play  with  the  harp." 
Iluldah  did  not  dwell  in  the  "  college,"  2  Kings  xxii, 
14,  but  in  the  "  second  ward  "  of  the  city.  "  Since 
that  time,"  Isa.  xvi,  13,  should  be  "  of  old ;  "  "  flagons 
of  wine,"  Hos.  iii,  1,  should  be  "  cakes  of  pressed 
grapes;  "  "galleries,"  Cant,  vii,  5,  should  be  "curls" 
or  "locks  of  hair."  Hosea  xi,  12,  does  not  use  the 
language  of  praise,  "  Judah  yet  ruleth  with  God,"  but 
of  censure,  "  he  roveth  or  runs  wild  in  his  dealings 
with  him."  Isaiah  ix,  1,  does  not  contrast  a  former 
6* 


m  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE    REVISION. 

light  affliction  of  Galilee  with  a  subsequent  more 
grievous  affliction  of  the  same  region,  but  the  period 
of  dishonor  with  the  glory  that  was  to  be  shed  upon 
that  region  by  the  coming  Redeemer.  "All  that  make 
sluices  and  ponds  for  fish/'  Isa.  xix,  10,  is  a  mere  guess 
from  the  connection,  and  should  be  rendered,  "  all  that 
work  for  hire  are  sad  at  heart."  Samson  did  not  go 
down  to  "  the  top  of  the  rock,"  Judges  xv,  8,  but  to 
the  "  cleft  of  the  rock."  The  children  of  Israel  did  not 
by  divine  direction  "  borrow,"  Ex.  xi,  2,  of  the  Egyp- 
tians what  they  never  intended  to  return ;  they 
"  asked  "  for  and  received  gifts.  "  Chariots  with  flam- 
ing torches,"  Xah.  ii,  3,  are  "  chariots  with  flashing 
steel;"  and  "the  fir  trees"  of  the  same  verse  are 
lances  made  of  cypress.  "  Hunt  souls  to  make  them 
fly,"  Ezek.  xiii,  20,  should  be  rendered,  "  hunt  souls 
as  birds ; "  and  the  "  untempered  mortar,"  ver.  10, 
should  be  "  whitewash." 

Such  mistakes  are  especially  frequent  in  articles  of 
dress  or  in  objects  of  natural  history.  The  "  headbands, 
and  tablets,  and  earrings,"  Isa.  iii,  20,  should  be 
"  sashes,  and  perfume  boxes,  and  amulets."  Joseph's 
"  coat  of  many  colors,"  Gen.  xxxvii,  3,  was  instead  "  a 
long  tunic  with  sleeves."  It  was  not  a  "veil"  but  a 
"mantle,"  Kuth  iii,  15,  in  which  Ruth  carried  the 
barley.  "Pillows  to  all  armholes,"  Ezek.  xiii,  18, 
should  be  "  cushions  for  the  knuckles."  The  men  that 
were  cast  into  the  fiery  furnace  were  bound,  not  in 
"  their  coats,  their  hosen  and  their  hats,"  but  in  "  their 
trowsers,  their  tunics,  and  their  mantles."  The  Chal- 
deans, Ezek.  xxiii,  15,  "  exceeding  with  dyed  attire," 
wore  "flowing  turbans,"  and  the  best  illustration  of 
the  entire  description  is  to  be  found  in  the  figures 
portrayed  on  tlie  palaces   of  Nineveh.     Tlie"  mules," 


HEBREW   PHILOLOGY    AND    BIBLICAL    SCIENCE.  67 

Gen.  xxxvi,  24,  ought  to  be  rendered,  "  warm  springs." 
The  "  unicorn,"  ^uni.  xxiii,  22,  is  a  wild  ox.  In 
Isaiah  xiii,  21,  22,  the  "owls"  are  "ostriches;"  the 
"  satyrs  "  are  "  goats ; "  the  "  wild  beasts  of  the  islands  " 
are  "wolves,"  and  the  "  dragons"  are  "jackals." 

Errors  in  Hebrew  Grammar. — There  are,  besides, 
many  passages  in  which  the  rendering  given  in  the 
Authorized  Version  is  in  violation  of  the  laws  of 
Hebrew  grammar.  The  most  frequently  recurring 
error  is  the  disregard  of  the  tenses,  particularly  in  the 
poetical  and  prophetical  books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
to  the  serious  detriment,  and  often  to  the  total  obscura- 
tion of  the  sense.  In  Ps.  iii,  4,  David  does  not  say,  "  I 
cried  "  and  "  he  heard,"  and  ver.  5,  "  the  Lord  sustained," 
as  though  he  were  relating  what  had  already  taken 
place  ;  but  "  I  will  cry,"  "  he  will  hear,"  "  the  Lord 
will  sustain :  "  it  is  the  language  of  confident  expecta- 
tion. Ps.  xxxvii,  40,  should  not  be  translated,  "  the 
Lord  shall  help  them  and  deliver  them,"  but  he  "  has 
helped  them  and  delivered  them ;  "  it  is  a  fact  of 
former  experience,  from  which  he  then  goes  on  to  infer 
that  he  will  do  the  same  in  the  future,  "  he  shall  deliver 
them  from  the  wicked  and  save  them."  By  the 
neglect  of  the  tenses  the  two  clauses  are  made  identical 
in  sense,  and  the  whole  argument  of  faith  is  lost.  In 
Ps.  xl,  11,  David  does  not  say,  "  Withhold  not  thou 
thy  tender  mercies,"  but  "thou  wilt  not  withhold;" 
it  is  not  the  language  of  petition,  but  of  faith.  In 
Obadiah,  vs.  12-14,  the  verbs  should  be  rendered, 
"look  not,"  "rejoice  not,"  etc.,  instead  of  "thou 
shouldest  not  have  looked,"  "  thou  shouldest  not  have 
rejoiced,"  etc.  Hab.  iii,  3,  should  not  be  "  God  came," 
but  "  God  will  come."   The  language  of  the  Authorized 


68  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION. 

Yersion  implies  that  these  prophets  were  narrating  or 
referring  to  what  was  past ;  whereas  they  are  predicting 
the  future. 

This  confusing  of  the  tenses  is  of  almost  perpetual 
occurrence  in  the  Psalms  and  in  the  Prophets,  leading 
to  serious  inversions  in  the  order  of  thought,  and  mar- 
ring the  beauty  and  force  of  the  language  used. 

Disregard  of  the  Definite  Article. — Another  fre- 
quent inaccuracy  is  the  disregard  of  the  definite  article, 
either  failing  to  render  it  where  it  does  occur,  or 
inserting  it  where  it  is  not.  Sometimes  this  is  attended 
with  serious  detriment  to  the  sense,  as  where  "  an 
ano-el  of  the  Lord  "  is  substituted  for  "the  ano-el  of  the 
Lord,"  a  created  for  the  uncreated  angel.  Judges  xxi, 
19,  should  not  read,  "  There  is  a  feast  of  the  Lord  in 
Shiloh,"  but  "  the  feast  ©f  the  Lord  is  in  Shiloh ;  "  it  is 
spoken  of  not  with  vague  indetiniteness,  but  as  a  defi- 
nite, well-known  observance. 

Inaccuracy  in  the  Construction. — It  may  be  added 
that  there  is  frequently  an  inaccuracy  in  the  construc- 
tion, as  where  possessive  pronouns  are  attached  to  the 
wrong  noun.  Thus,  Ps.  iv,  1,  David  addresses  the 
Lord  not  as  the  Authorized  Version  has  it,  "  God  of 
my  righteousness,"  as  though  his  meaning  were  the 
God  who  defends  my  righteous  cause,  but  "  my 
righteous  God."  Ps.  lix,  17,  not  "  God  of  my  mercy," 
but  "  my  merciful  God."  Ps.  xlvii,  8,  not  "  the  throne 
of  his  holiness;"  Ps.  xlviii,  1,  not  "the  mountain  of 
his  holiness,"  but  "his  holy  throne,"  "his  holy  moun- 
tain." Isa.  xiii,  ti,  not  "  thcni  that  rejoice  in  my  high- 
ness," but  "  my  proud  exulters."  Errors  in  relative 
constructions,  c.^.,  Isa.  vii,  l(j,  not  "  the  land,  that  thou 


HEBREW    PHILOLOGY   AND    BIBLICAL    SCIENCE.  69 

abhorrest,  shall  be  forsaken  of  botb  her  kings,"  but 
"the  land,  of  whose  two  kings  thou  art  afraid,  shall 
be  forsaken."  Ps.  Iv,  19,  not  "  God  shall  hear  and 
afflict  them.  Because  they  have  no  changes,  therefore 
they  fear  not  God,"  but  "  God  shall  hear  and  answer 
them,  who  have  no  changes  and  who  fear  not  God," 
i.e.,  as  he  heard  me  in  mercy,  ver.  17,  so  he  will  hear 
them  in  wrath,  answering  not  their  prayers,  for  they 
do  not  pray,  but  the  voice  of  their  malignant  slanders. 
And  other  miscellaneous  constructions,  which  it  is 
needless  to  particularize  in  further  detail,  e.g.,  Ezek. 
xxxiv,  31,  not  "  ye  my  flock  are  men,"  but  "  ye  men 
are  my  flock."  Ps.  vii,  13,  not  ''  ordaineth  his  arrows 
against  the  persecutors,"  but  "  maketh  his  arrows 
burning."  Ps.  x,  4,  not  "  God  is  not  in  all  his 
thoughts,"  but  "  all  his  thoughts  are.  There  is  no  God." 
Ps.  xix,  3,  not  "  There  is  no  speech  nor  language  where 
their  voice  is  not  heard,"  as  though  the  Psalmist  were 
speaking  of  the  universality  of  God's  self-revelation  in 
nature.  The  insertion  of  the  italic  word  "  lohere " 
entirely  deranges  the  relation  of  the  clauses,  and  intro- 
duces a  totally  diflerent  thought  from  that  which  David 
intended.  He  means  that  all  nature  has  a  voice,  though 
it  is  not  addressed  to  juan's  outward  ear.  "  There  is 
no  speech  nor  language;  their  voice  is  not  heard." 
Ps.  xxii,  30,  not  "  it  shall  be  accounted  unto  the  Lord 
for  a  generation,"  but  ''it  shall  be  related  of  the  Lord 
unto  the  next  generation."  E'um.  xxiii,  23,  not 
"  Surely  there  is  no  enchantment  against  Jacob, 
neither  is  there  any  divination  against  Israel :  accord- 
ing to  the  time  it  shall  be  said  of  Jacob  and  of  Israel, 
What  hath  God  wrought!"  The  meaning  is  not  that 
God's  divine  power  will  eiFectually  guard  Israel  against 
all  hostile  arts  of  enchantment :  but  Israel  has  no  need 


70  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE    REVISION. 

to  resort  to  deceptive  and  unauthorized  modes  of 
learning  the  divine  will,  for  this  will  is  disclosed  to 
them  as  their  needs  may  require.  ''  There  is  no  en- 
chantment in  Jacob,  nor  divination  in  Israel ;  at  the 
time  it  shall  be  told  to  Jacob  and  Israel  what  God  hath 
wrought."  The  italic  words,  into  a  trance^  ]Srum.  xxiv, 
4,  obscure  the  statement  of  the  overpowering  physical 
effect  produced  upon  Balaam  by  the  splendor  of  the 
divine  revelations.  The  italic  words,  to  ivit,  improperly 
inserted  in  Josh,  xvii,  1,  precisely  reverse  the  meaning 
of  the  clause.  It  is  designed  to  explain  why  no  lot  was 
cast  for  Machir  now ;  the  reason  is,  because  his  pos- 
session had  already  been  assigned  to  him  east  of  the 
Jordan. 

Duty  of  Eevisionists. — Such  illustrations  could  be 
mnltiplicd.  Those  which  have  been  already  given  are 
sufficient  to  show  that,  with  the  light  that  has  been  shed 
upon  the  Hebrew  language,  and  the  increased  informa- 
tion gained  upon  subjects  collateral  to  the  study  of  the 
Old  Testament  since  the  days  of  King  James,  a  great 
number  of  passages  are  understood  now  in  a  sense  dif- 
ferent from  that  given  by  our  translators.  To  make 
those  corrections  in  the  renderings  which  the  general 
voice  of  the  best  scholars  affirms  ought  to  be  made,  is 
not  to  unsettle  the  Scriptures  and  to  weaken  their  hold 
upon  the  public  mind,  but  the  reverse.  Innovations 
are  not  to  be  recklessly  or  needlessly  made.  But  the 
removal  of  palpable  errors  and  mistakes  is  simply  ex- 
tracting the  fly  from  tlie  pot  of  ointment.  The  marvel 
is  not  that  occasional  changes  are  needed  to  increase  the 
perfection  of  the  Authorized  Version  and  to  l)ring  it 
nearer  to  tlie  standard  of  the  best  biblical  scholarship  of 
the  time,  but  that,  considering  the  period  when  it  was 


HEBREW    PHILOLOGY   AND    BIBLICAL    SCIENCE.  71 

made  and  the  scanty  helps  which  were  then  possessed, 
the  changes  required  are  not  more  numerous  and  more 
radicaL  It  is  absohitelj  astonishing  to  find  to  how  large 
an  extent  this  grand  old  version  must  be  confessed  to 
be  still  the  most  adequate  and  accurate  translation  that 
can  now  be  made ;  and  how  vast  a  proportion  of  its 
renderings  can  be  subjected  to  the  most  rigorous  tests 
tha,t  modern  learning  can  apply  without  the  detection 
of  a  single  flaw. 


THE  HELPS  FOR  TR A:N'SL  ATHvTG  THE  HEBREW 
SCRIPTURES  AT  THE  TIME  THE  AUTHOR- 
IZED YERSIOK  WAS  MADE. 

BY    REV.  GEORGE    E.  DAY,  D.D., 
Professor  of  Hebrew  Literature  and  Biblical  Theology  in  Yale  College. 

Of  the  forty-eight  scholars  to  whom  we  owe  the 
present  Authorized  Version  of  the  English  Bible, 
twenty-five,  divided  into  three  companies,  were  en- 
gaged upon  the  Hebrew  books  of  the  Old  Testament. 
There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  their  qualifications  for  the 
work.  Several  of  them  were  eminent  in  oriental 
studies.  One  had  the  reputation  of  being  the  best 
Arabic  scholar  of  his  time.  Five  of  them,  either 
then,  or  subsequently,  were  professors  of  Hebrew  in 
one  or  the  other  of  the  two  great  Universities  of  Eng. 
land.  Their  renderings  show  that  they  carefully 
weighed  the  considerations  on  which  the  translation 
of  difficult  passages  must  depend,  and  exercised  an 
independent  judgment.  To  a  great  degree  they  came 
to  Avhat  the  critical  scholarship  of  later  times  has  pro- 
nounced a  correct  decision.  In  other  cases,  where  they 
were  divided  in  opinion,  or  admitted  that  a  dififcrent 
rendering  from  that  which  they  adopted  was  worthy 
of  consideration,  they  placed  it,  in  a  true  Protestant 
spirit,  in  the  margin.  If  these  marginal  readings 
and  other  renderings,  in  consequence  of  the  ])rogress 
of  exegetical  study,  have  been  frequently  found  to  de- 
serve the  preference,  it  only  shows  that  the  scholars  of 
the  early  part  of  the  seventeenth  century  were  not 
provided,  and  could  not  be,  with  all  the  helps  for  a 
decision  which  have  accumulated  since  their  day.  The 
division  of  labor  in  the  wliole  field  of  the  Hebrew  and 

72 


HELPS   FOR   TRANSLATING   THE   HEBREW    SCRIPTURES.      73 

its  cognate  languages  enables  a  student,  in  our  time,  to 
avail  himself  of  advantages  for  gaining  a  true  knowl- 
edge of  the  meaning  of  the  Old  Testament  which  the 
most  stupendous  learning  of  a  former  age  knew  noth- 
ing of.  E^othing,  of  course,  can  ever  take  the  place  of 
a  familiar  acquaintance  with  the  Hebrew  and  other 
Semitic  languages ;  but  it  is  quite  possible  for  an  in- 
terpreter now,  in  consequence  of  the  far  wider  range 
of  materials  at  his* command,  to  form  a  judgment  on  a 
difficult  passage  more  trustworthy  than,  it  was  possible 
for  the  most  eminent  scholars  two  centuries  and  a  half 
ago  to  reach. 

The  force  of  this  remark  will  best  be  seen  from  a 
rapid  survey  of  the  learned  helps  for  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Old  Testament  accessible  to  the  translators 
of  the  Authorized  Version. 

Less  than  a  century  had  passed  since  the  Lutheran 
Reformation,  and  though  the  impulse  given  to  Hebrew 
studies  in  the  Christian  Church  had  been  immense,  and 
many  of  the  principal  sources  of  knowledge,  in  respect 
to  the  Hebrew  Bible,  were  within  their  reach,  yet  the 
apparatus  of  scholarship  at  their  command  would  be 
regarded  in  our  day  as  quite  imperfect.  The  text, 
indeed,  had  received  the  fixed  form  adopted  by  the 
Jewish  scholars  who  gave  to  it  its  present  punctuation. 
1^0  manuscripts  of  an  earlier  date  exist  with  which  w^e 
can  compare  it,  and  the  chief  superiority,  therefore,  of 
the  modern  printed  editions  arises  from  the  more  care- 
ful editing  of  the  Masoretic  text,  with  the  apparatus 
of  vowels  and  accents,  and  the  addition  of  selected  crit- 
ical notes,  which  have  been  transmitted  to  us  from  an 
early  period. 

But  when  we  come  to  the  ancient  translations,  on 
which  so  much  depends  for  the  verification   of  the 

7 


74  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION. 

Hebrew  text  and  the  proper  rendering  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  the  case  is  widely  different.  The  earliest 
of  these,  in  Greek, — the  Septiiagint,  so  called  —  made, 
in  part  at  least,  in  the  third  century  before  Christ  and 
in  common  use  in  the  early  Christian  Church,  was 
accessible  to  King  James's  translators  in  the  Complu- 
tensian  and  Antwerp  Polyglots,  and  also  in  separate 
editions  ;  but  the  Alexandrian  manuscript  in  the  Brit- 
ish Museum  and  the  Sinaitic  manuscript  discovered  by 
Tischendorf,  as  well  as  the  critical  labors  expended 
upon  the  several  copies  of  this  venerable  Greek  version 
by  eminent  scholars  in  England  and  on  the  Continent, 
have  furnished  the  materials  for  a  much  more  accurate 
text  than  any  which  was  possible  when  the  Authorized 
Version  was  made.  Since  then,  also,  the  fragments  pre- 
served in  the  works  of  Origen,  of  the  translations 
into  Greek  by  Aquila,  Theodotion,  Symmachus,  and 
others,  made  after  the  Christian  era,  have  been  placed 
at  the  service  of  scholars. 

The  Latin  Vulgate,  another  most  important  ancient 
version,  was  of  course  in  their  hands.  On  many  pass- 
ages their  decision  was  determined  by  its  renderings, 
on  the  ground,  which  cannot  be  questioned,  that  the 
testimony  of  a  learned  scholar  like  Jerome,  with  the 
opportunities  he  enjoyed  for  becoming  acquainted  with 
the  acce])ted  Jewish  intcr])rotation  of  his  day,  is  de- 
serving of  special  consideration,  ^'et  this  vci'sion  has 
suffered  so  many  changes  and  corruptions,  in  tlie  course 
of  ages,  that  it  cannot  ha  relied  upon,  in  its  present 
form,  as  giving  in  all  cases  the  exact  renderings  of 
Jerome.  The  book  of  Psalms,  as  it  stands  in  the  Vul- 
gate, is  an  earlier  version  made  by  hhn.  Wlioever 
wishes  to  learn  his  final  judgment,  must  consult  the 
more  correct  translation  which  he  afterwards  made. 


HELPS    FOR   TRANSLATING    THE    HEBREW    SCRIPTURES.       75 

It  is  only  within  a  few  years  that  the  Codex  Amiati- 
nus,  which  contains  Jerome's  own  translation  of  the 
Old  Testament,  in  distinction  from  the  text  found  in 
the  ordinary  editions  of  the  Yulgate,  has  been  made 
accessible  to  scholars. 

With  the  early  Syriac  translation  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, the  third  most  important  ancient  version, 
the  translators  of  our  Authorized  Version  could  have 
hd^  no  acquaintance.  Its  value  lies  in  its  correctness, 
and  its  being  in  a  language  cognate  to  Hebrew,  and 
consequently  affording  special  means  of  comparison. 
It  was  first  printed  in  the  Paris  Polyglot  more  than 
thirty  years  after  the  Authorized  Version  appeared, 
and  was  followed  at  a  later  period  by  the  publication 
of  another  Syriac  translation,  which,  however,  is  of  less 
value  because  made  from  the  Septuagint. 

"Without  going  further  into  details,  we  may  say  in 
general  that  the  only  ancient  versions  of  the  Old 
Testament  accessible  to  scholars  at  the  beginning  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  except  a  few  single  books  or 
parts,  were  imperfect  texts  of  the  Septuagint,  the  Tar- 
gums  or  Chaldee  paraphrases,  and  the  Vulgate.  The 
other  ancient  translations,  the  Samaritan  version  of  the 
Pentateuch,  the  Syriac  and  Arabic  versions,  and  parts 
of  the  Ethiopic  and  Persian  versions  contained  in  the 
later  Polyglots,  were  not  published  until  many  years 
after  the  English  translation  of  1611,  and  could  have 
made  no  contribution  either  directly  or  indirectly,  to- 
wards determining  its  renderings. 

Tlie  philological  helps  accessible  to  the  scholars  who 
made  our  Authorized  Version  would  now  be  consid- 
ered quite  rudimentary.  The  larger  Hebrew  Grammar 
of  the  elder  Buxtorf  appeared  shortly  before  their 
work  was  finished  (1609).     It  was  in  advance  certainly 


76  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION. 

of  the  rude  attempts  of  tlie  few  grammarians  before 
his  time,  whether  Rabbinic  or  Christian,  but  in  con- 
trast with  the  elaborate  and  exhaustive  grammars 
of  Ewald  and  Bottcher,  or  the  more  compendious 
treatises  of  Gesenius  and  Green,  it  is  exceedingly 
meagre.  The  latest  and  best  lexicon  at  their  com- 
mand was  Buxtorf  s,  which  appeared  in  1067,  just  as 
they  were  commencing  their  labors.  The  help  to  be 
gained  from  the  Rabbins  and  the  Vulgate  he  diligently 
employed.  Here  and  there  he  makes  use  of  the  Syriac. 
But  the  age  of  comparative  philology,  in  the  sense 
in  which  the  term  is  now  understood,  had  not  yet  ar- 
rived. The  great  scholars  of  the  next  sixty  3^ears, 
whose  names  are  inseparably  connected  with  Hebrew 
learning,  as  De  Dieu,  Pococke,  and  Castell  (Castellus), 
rendered  good  service  in  preparing  tlie  way  ;  ]^ut  it  was 
a  hundred  years  before  Schultens  in  Holland,  by  call- 
ing attention  to  the  roots  of  Hebrew  existing  in  Arabic, 
gave  the  impulse  to  the  study  of  the  cognate  Semitic 
languages,  which  has  resulted  in  the  far  more  exact 
knowledge  of  the  radical  idea  of  Hebrew  words  which 
characterizes  the  lexicons  of  the  present  century. 

The  advantage  gained  by  this  wide  and  careful  com- 
parison of  the  cognate  languages  is,  that  instead  of 
being  dependent  ujion  Kal)binic  tradition,  the  inter- 
preter is  now  able  to  test  its  correctness  and  expose  its 
errors.  He  possesses  the  means  of  deciding,  ui)on  some 
solid  foundation,  betwoon  the  divergent  renderings  of 
the  ancient  versions  and  on  the  probable  meaning  of 
the  class  of  words  which  occur  but  once  in  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  and  are  therefore  petniliarly  difficult.  The 
best  results  of  the  labors  of  Hebrew  scholars  for  two 
centuries  and  a  half  in  various  directions  and  on  a  mul- 
titude of  single  points,  gathered  and  presented  in  a 


HELPS   FOR    TRANSLATING    THE    HEBREW    SCRIPTURES.      77 

compact  form  in  the  modern  lexicons  and  grammars, 
place  the  interpreters  of  our  day  in  possession  of  a  mass 
of  materials  for  forming  a  correct  judgment  on  the 
meaning  of  the  Sacred  Text  far  beyond  what  was  pos- 
sible when  the  Authorized  Version  w^as  made. 

The  bearing  of  this  upon  the  character  of  the  mod- 
ern versions  which  we  know  were  consulted  is  evident 
at  a  glance.  These  versions,  of  which  several  had  been 
made  into  Latin,  varying  more  or  less  from  the  Yulgate, 
represented  simply  the  Hebrew  learning  of  the  time. 
The  same  remark  is  true  of  the  translations  made  into 
the  principal  languages  of  Europe  in  the  century  which 
succeeded  the  Reformation.  Selden  relates  in  his  Table 
Talk  that  "  that  part  of  the  Bible  was  given  to  him 
who  was  most  excellent  in  such  a  tongue,  and  then 
they  met  together  and  one  read  the  translation,  the  rest 
holding  in  their  hands  some  Bible  either  of  the  learned 
tongues,  or  French,  Spanish,  Italian,  etc. ;  if  they  found 
any  fault,  they  spoke,  if  not,  he  read  on."  With  this 
agrees  the  statement  in  the  original  preface  of  the 
Authorized  Version:  " E'either  did  we  think  [it]  much 
to  consult  the  translators  or  commentators,  Chaldee, 
Hebrew,  Syriac,  [New  Testament]  Greek  or  Latin, 
nor  the  Spanish,  French,  Italian  or  Dutch  [German]." 
In  availing  themselves  of  these  helps,  in  the  way  of 
com]:)arisoh  and  suggestion,  they  acted  wisely  and  well;- 
but  the  testimony  of  the  translations  into  the  lan- 
guages of  modern  Europe  to  which  they  refer  would 
now  be  considered  of  limited  value.  One  of  the  best 
of  them,  the  Italian  version  of  Diodati,  which  appeared 
in  1607,  was  issued  in  less  than  forty  years  in  a  revised 
edition.  The  version  of  Luther,  which,  in  consequence 
of  intwining  itself  into  the  language  as  well  as  the 
hearts  of  the  German  nation,  has  firmly  held  its  place, 
7*         • 


78  ANaLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE   REVISION. 

is  at  last  obliged,  under  the  discovery  of  its  numerous 
errors,  to  yield  to  the  necessity  of  Revision.  In  Swe- 
den, Denmark,  and  Holland  the  same  necessity  is  found 
to  exist,  although  in  the  latter  country  the  States' 
Translation  so  called,  made  a  few  years  after  our 
Authorized  Version,  is  one  of  high  and  undisputed 
excellence. 

The  commentaries  on  the  Old  Testament  to  which 
King  James's  translators  were  confined,  aside  from 
the  Rabbinic  expositions,  were  either  those  of  the 
church  fathers,  who  with  few  exceptions  were  wholly 
unacquainted  with  Hebrew,  or  those  of  the  Reform- 
ers and  their  immediate  successors.  Many  of  the 
latter  in  their  strong  grasp  of  Christian  truth  and 
their  vigorous  exhibition  of  the  thoughts  of  the  sacred 
writers  will  always  deserve  to  be  studied.  But  on  all 
questions  of  critical  difficulty,  on  the  decision  of  which 
not  only  the  thought  itself,  but  the  whole  connection 
so  frequently  depends,  they  were  at  a  great  disadvan- 
tage, and  in  numerous  instances  entirely  missed  the 
sense.  [Not  one  of  them  can  now  be  used  for  the  so- 
lution of  a  linguistic  difficulty,  nor  be  safely  trusted, 
in  many  cases,  to  give  the  true  thought  of  the  original 
without  the  safeguard  furnished  by  the  more  recent 
learned  commentaries.  This  is  said  in  no  spirit  of  de- 
preciation, but,  on  the  contrary,  with  the  highest  regard 
for  their  work.  But  that  work  must  be  taken  for 
what  it  was,  and  not  for  what  it  was  not.  The  style 
and  possibility  of  the  highest  critical  commentary  of 
the  present  day  could  only  exist  after  the  labors  of  suc- 
cessive generations  of  scholars  on  the  ancient  and 
modern  versions,  on  the  comparison  of  languages  most 
nearly  related  to  Hebrew,  and  on  a  multitude  of  subjects 
of  critical  investigation  connected  with  the  Old  Testa- 


HELPS   FOR    TRANSLATING   THE   HEBREW    SCRIPTURES.      79 

ment.  The  results  of  these  studies  brought  into  a 
compressed  form,  and  made  to  constitute  a  foundation 
for  new  and  fuller  explorations,  constitute  the  peculi- 
arity of  the  helps  possessed  by  the  interpreter  of  the 
present  day,  and  indicate  the  necessarily  narrower 
limits  within  which  the  scholars  who  prepared  the 
translation  of  the  Old  Testament  in  our  Authorized 
Version  were  restricted. 

The  nature  of  the  parallelism  found  in  the  poeti- 
cal books  of  the  Old  Testament  was  also  less  perfectly 
understood  than  at  present,  and  the  abundant  contri- 
butions since  made  to  the  antiquities,  natural  history, 
and  geography  of  the  Scriptures  now  offer  means  for 
understanding  many  passages  which,  without  this  aid, 
could  never  be  correctly  interpreted. 


SOME  IXACCUKACIES  OF  THE  AUTHORIZED 
VERSION  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMEJ^T. 


Professor  of  Biblical  Literature  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Theological 
Seminary,  Alexandria,  Virginia. 

As  the  more  general  subjects  connected  with  the 
Revision  of  the  Authorized  Version  have  been  suffi- 
ciently discussed,  there  remains  only  the  more  special 
subject  of  indisputable  errors  in  our  version,  which 
need  to  be  corrected.  There  is  no  better  argument  for 
revision,  than  the  existence  of  such  errors.  If  fliey 
could  not  be  corrected,  it  would  be  unwise  and  unkind 
to  make  them  known  to  those  to  whom  tlie  English 
Bible,  and  the  English  Bible  only,  is  the  A^^ord  of  God. 
The  only  course  to  be  pursued  would  be  to  hide  them 
reverently,  and  thus  not  shake  the  faith  of  the  unlearned. 

We  assume  that  the  English  translation  of  the  Bible 
should  be  as  faithful  as  possible  to  the  inspired  original, 
so  tJiat  the  unlearned  reader  may  be  as  nearly  as  pos- 
sible in  the  place  of  the  learned  one.  Tbere  are  some 
who  practically  deny  this  self-evident  proposition. 
They  would  have  us  retain  time-hallowed  errors  in  our 
version;  they  appeal  to  popular  prejudice.  Tliey  remind 
us  of  the  old  priest  in  the  reign  of  Henry  viii.,  who 
used  to  say,  Mumpsimus,  Domine,  instead  of  Sumpsimus, 
and  when  remonstrated  with,  replied,  "I  am  not  going 
to  change  my  old  mampsimus  for  your  now  faiigled 
sumpsimus.^' 

AVhile  there  is  a  wide  spread  opinion  that  our  version 
contains  errors,  the  only  way  to  restore  confidence  in 
it  is  to  appoint  a  committee  of  investigation  to  ascertain 

80 


INACCURACIES    OF    THE   AUTHORIZED    VERSION.  81 

the  exact  state  of  the  case.  Even  when  no  change  is 
made  the  fact  that  examiners,  in  whom  the  Church  has 
confidence,  have  found  none  necessary,  must  go  far  to 
inspire  increased  confidence.  Isaac  Walton  tells  us, 
"  that  Dr.  Richard  Kilbye,  one  of  the  Company  of  the 
Translators  of  the  Authorized  Version,  heard  accident- 
ally a  young  preacher  discussing  the  ^N'ew  Translation, 
and  giving  three  reasons  why  a  particular  word  should 
have  been  translated  differentl3\  The  Doctor  told  him, 
on  meeting  him,  that  he  and  others  had  considered  the 
three  reasons  mentioned,  and  found  thirteen  stronger 
ones  for  translating  it  as  it  was." 

We  proceed  now  to  give  some  examples  of  errors  in 
the  EnHish  version,  which  are  acknowleds-ed  to  be  such 
by  the  almost  universal  consent  of  critical  commentators. 
The  correction  of  these  errors  of  translation  will  affect 
some  texts  often  preached  upon,  and  upon  which  a  dif- 
ferent interpretation  has  been  put  by  tradition. 

In  the  24th  chapter  of  Proverbs,  21st  verse,  we  read, 
"  My  son,  meddle  not  with  them  that  are  given  to 
change."  Now  it  happens  that  the  word  given  belongs 
entirely  to  the  English  version,  and  is  not  found  in  the 
Hebrew,  where  the  original  word  is  a  participial  form, 
and  means  changers ^  or  those  changing.  Matthew  Henry 
says,  "  He  does  not  say,  with  them  that  change^  for  there 
may  be  cause  to  change  for  the  better;  but  that  are  given 
to  change,  that  afiect  it,  for  change  sake." 

The  English  version  of  the  book  of  Job  has  always 
been  regarded  by  the  best  judges  as  very  unsatisfactory. 
In  Job  iii,  3,  where  Job  curses  the  day  of  his  birth,  he 
represents  the  night  of  his  birth  as  saying,  with  joy, 
"  There  is  a  man  child  born  ! "  Our  version  has  it,  in 
which  it  was  said,  thus  destroying  the  poetic  figure, 
which  personifies  the  night.     It  should  have  been.  Let 


82  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE    REVISION. 

the  night  perish,  which  said.  In  the  sublime  address 
of  Jehovah  to  Job,  in  the  39th  and  40th  chapters,  we 
find  several  verses  in  our  version  which  fail  to  give  the 
sense  of  the  original.  In  the  description  of  the  war 
horse,  chapter  39th  and  24th  verse,  it  is  said,  "  Neither 
believeth  he  that  it  is  the  sound  of  the  trumpet."  If 
belief  can  be  ascribed  to  a  horse,  it  is  the  very  thing 
which  he  believes,  for  he  has  heard  the  sound  of  the 
trumpet  often  enough  before.  The  primary  sense  of 
the  verb  translated  believeth  is,  to  be  firm,  and  adopting 
this  we  have  this  sense  :  IN'either  can  he  stand  still  at 
the  sound  of  the  trumpet.  Virgil,  in  describing  the  war 
horse,  says,  "  When  the  arms  clash  he  knows  not  how 
to  stand  still." 

In  Job  xl,  19,  in  the  description  of  the  hippopotamus, 
it  is  said  in  our  version,  "  He  that  made  him  can  make 
his  sword  to  approach  wiio  him."  The  translation  now 
almost  universally  adopted  by  the  critics  is,  "  His  maker 
gives  him  his  sword,"  or  tusk. 

In  Job  xl,  23,  "  Behold,  he  drinketh  up  a  river,  and 
hasteth  not;  he  trusteth  that  he  can  draw  up  Jordan 
into  his  mouth."  This  gives  no  congruous  sense.  The 
translation  adopted  by  Fiirst,  Conant  and  others,  is — 

"  Lo  a  river  swells,  he  is  not  afraid ; 
Fearless,  though  Jordan  ruslies  to  his  mouth." 

In  Daniel  ii,  5,  "  The  king  answered  and  said  to  the 
astrologers.  The  thing  is  gone  from  me."  From  the 
heading  of  the  chapter,  '^  jSTebucliadnezzar  forgetting 
his  dream,"  etc.,  we  infer  that  the  Authorized  Version 
understood  by  tlie  thing,  the  dream,  and  that  the  king 
had  forgotten  his  dream ;  but  in  that  case  it  would  not 
have  troubled  him.  The  true  reason  of  the  king's 
requiring  them  to  tell  the  dream  is  given  in  verse  9th; 


INACCURACIES    OF   THE   AUTHORIZED   VERSION.  83 

"  Tell  me  the  dream,  and  I  shall  know  that  ye  can  show 
me  the  interpretation  thereof."  The  Chaldee  word, 
translated  in  oar  version  thing,  is  the  same  word,  trans- 
lated, verse  9,  word,  and  also  in  chapter  iii,  28,  the  kinfs 
v:ord.  It  should  then  have  been  translated,  The  word 
has  gone  from  me. 

In  Daniel  vii,  9,  "  I  beheld  till  the  thrones  were  cast 
down,"  it  should  be  exactly  the  reverse — were  set  up. 
So  Gesenius,  Ftirst  and  others,  as  in  Jeremiah  i,  15 : 
"  They  shall  set  every  one  his  throne,"  or  seat ;  and  in 
Apocalypse  iv,  2,  "Behold,  a  throne  was  set  in 
heaven." 

In  1  Kings  x,  28,  in  our  translation  it  is  said,  "  Solo- 
mon had  horses  brought  out  of  Egypt,  and  linen  yarn : 
the  king's  merchants  received  the  linen  yarn  at  a  price." 
The  context  refers  to  the  manner  in  which  Solomon 
obtained  horses  by  importation  from  Egypt.  The  word 
translated  linen  yarn  is  elsewhere  translated  gathering 
together.  Gen.  i,  10,  and  is  applied  in  this  verse  to  mer- 
chants and  to  horses.  It  should  be  translated,  "And 
the  company  of  the  king's  merchants  fetched  each  drove 
at  a  price." 

Much  of  force  is  lost  in  our  translation  by  not 
observing  the  rule  that  where  the  same  word  occurs  in 
the  same  context  in  the  original  it  should  be  translated 
by  the  same  word.  There  are  so  many  cases  where 
this  rule  is  violated  in  our  version  that  it  is  difficult  to 
make  a  selection.  In  Isaiah  xxviii,  15-19,  where  men- 
tion is  made  of  "  the  overflowing  scourge  passing 
through,"  this  is  repeated  four  times  in  the  original,  with 
great  emphasis.  In  our  version  the  word  translated 
pass  through  in  verses  15, 18,  is  translated  goeth  forth  in 
verse  19,  and  also  pass  over.  The  20th  verse  would 
gain  much  in  impression  if  translated,  "As  often  as  it 


84  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE    REVISION. 

passetli  through  it  shall  take  you ;  for  morning  by  morn- 
ing shall  it  pass  through,  by  day  and  by  night."  In  the 
17th  verse  our  version  makes  judgment,  or  justice,  not 
the  measure,  but  the  thing  to  be  measured.  The  mean- 
ing is  that  God  would  deal  in  strict  justice.  ''  I  will 
make  judgment  for  a  line  and  righteousness  for  a  plumb 
line."  In  the  20th  verse  the  translation  might  be 
improved,  "  For  the  bed  is  too  short  to  stretch  one's 
self,  and  the  covering  too  narrow  to  wrap  one's  self" 

The  translation  of  the  whole  chapter  is  unsatisfactory. 
To  go  back  to  the  first  verses,  the  chapter  opens  with 
a  woe  tlenounced  against  Samaria,  the  capital  of 
Ephraim,  and  alludes  to  its  situation  on  a  hill,  at  the 
head  of  a  rich  valley.  "  Woe  to  the  crown  of  pride  of 
the  drunkards  of  Ephraim,  and  to  the  fading  flower  of 
his  glorious  beauty,  which  is  on  the  head  of  the  fat 
valley."  Verse  third  :  "  The  crown  of  pride  of  the 
drunkards  of  Ephraim  shall  be  trodden  under  foot; 
and  the  fading  flower  of  his  glorious  beauty,  which  is 
on  the  head  of  the  fat  valley,  sliall  be  as  the  first  ripe 
fruit  before  the  summer ;  which  he  that  seeth,  while  it 
is  yet  in  his  hand,  eatetli  up."  >  If  one  will  take  the 
pains  to  compare  the  new  translation  of  the  fourth 
verse  with  the  English  version,  he  will  see  how  much 
is  gained. 

In  Isaiah  vi,  1-3,  our  translation  mistakes  the  mean- 
ing of  the  original.  It  contains  a  threatening  of 
repeated  judgment,  but  closes  with  a  gracious  promise, 
"And  though  there  be  left  in  it  a  tenth,  it  shall  again 
be  consumed ;  as  a  terebinth,  and  as  an  oak,  whose 
trunk  remaineth,  when  they  are  felled,  so  its  trunk 
shall  be  a  holy  seed." 

The  space  allo\ved  us  precludes  the  specification  of 
any  more  passages,  which  might  be  greatly  improved 


INACCURACIES    OF   THE   AUTHORIZED    VERSION.  85 

by  a  reverential  and  well  considered  revision,  wliicli 
shall  amend  the  errors  and  supply  the  defects  of  our 
version.  The  lack  of  consistency  in  it,  which  cannot 
fail  to  strike  every  one  engaged  in  the  laborious  yet 
most  interesting  task  of  unifying  the  translation  of  the 
same  word  in  the  original,  wherever  it  occurs,  and  the 
sense  permits  it,  will,  Ave  hope,  be  remedied  by  the 
Committee  meeting  in  the  same  place.  While  the 
received  interpretation  of  some  texts  may  thus  have 
to  be  given  up,  other  texts,  brought  out  into  a  new 
light,  will  take  their  place,  and  the  gain  will  be  greater 
than  the  loss,  ^o  one  need  fear  that  "  the  mingled 
tenderness  and  majesty,  the  Saxon  simplicity,  the  pre- 
ternatural grandeur  "  of  our  Authorized  Version  will 
suffer  an  eclipse  in  the  Revision. 


8 


THE  KEW  TESTAMEN'T  TEXT. 

THE  IMPERFECTION  OF  THE  GREEK  TEXT  OF  THE  NEW 
TESTAMENT  FROM  WHICH  OUR  COMMON  ENGLISH  VER- 
SION WAS  MADE,  AND  OUR  PRESENT  RESOURCES  FOR  ITS 
CORRECTION. 

BY   PROF.   EZRA   ABBOT,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  CAMBRIDGE,   MASS. 

It  is  an  unquestionable  fact  that  the  Greek  text  of  the 
New  Testament  from  which  our  common  English  ver- 
sion was  made  contains  many  hundreds  of  errors  which 
have  affected  the  translation ;  and  that  in  some  cases 
whole  verses,  or  even  longer  passages,  in  the  common 
English  Bible  are.  spurious.  This  fact  alone  is  sufficient 
to  justify  the  demand  for  such  a  revision  of  the  com- 
mon version  as  shall  remove  these  corruptions.  Why, 
when  so  much  pains  is  taken  to  obtain  as  correct  a  text 
as  possible  of  ancient  classical  authors — of  Homer,  Plato, 
or  Thucydides — should  we  be  content  with  a  text  of  the 
New  Testament  formed  from  a  few  modern  manuscripts 
in  the  infancy  of  criticism,  now  that  our  means  of  im- 
proving it  are  increased  a  hundred-fold  ?  Why  should 
the  mere  mistakes  of  transcribers  still  be  imposed  upon 
unlearned  readers  as  the  words  of  evangelists  and 
apostles,  or  even  of  our  Lord  himself? 

The  statements  that  have  just  been  made  require 
illustration  and  explanation,  in  order  that  the  impor- 
tance of  these  errors  of  the  received  text  may  not  be 
exaggerated  on  the  one  hand  or  under-estimated  on  the 
other.    We  will  consider,  tlicn — 

I.  The  Nature  and  Extent  of  the  Differences 
OF  Text  in  the  Grekk  Manuscripts  of  the  New 
Testament. — The  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament, 

86 


THE   NEW    TESTAMENT    TEXT.  87 

like  those  of  all  other  ancient  writings,  difier  from  one 
another  in  some  readings  of  considerable  interest  and 
importance,  and  in  a  multitude  of  unimportant  par- 
ticulars, such  as  the  spelling  of  certain  words ;  the 
order  of  the  words ;  the  addition  or  omission  of  par- 
ticles not  aiFecting,  or  only  slightly  affecting,  the  sense; 
the  insertion  of  words  that  would  otherwise  be  under- 
stood ;  the  substitution  of  a  word  or  phrase  for  another 
synonymous  with  it ;  the  use  of  different  tenses  of  the 
same  verb,  or  different  cases  of  the  same  noun,  where 
the  variation  is  immaterial;  and  other  points  of  no 
more  consequence.  The  various  readings  which  are 
comparatively  important  as  affecting  the  sense  consist, 
for  the  most  part :  (1)  of  the  substitution  of  one  word 
for  another  that  closely  resembles  it  in  spelling  or  in 
pronunciation;  (2)  the  omission  of  a  clause  or  longer 
passage  from  homoeoteleuton,  that  is,  the  fact  that  it  ends 
with  the  same  word  or  the  same  series  of  syllables  as 
the  one  preceding  it ;  and  (3)  the  addition  to  the  text  of 
words  which  were  originally  written  as  a  marginal 
note  or  gloss,  or  are  supplied  from  a  parallel  passage. 
Ancient  scribes,  like  modern  printers,  when  very  know- 
ing, have  often  made  mistakes  while  they  thought  they 
were  correcting  them ;  but  there  is  little  or  no  ground 
for  believing  that  the  text  of  the  ~New  Testament  has 
suffered  in  any  place  from  wilful  corruption. 

The  state  of  the  case  will  be  made  plainer  by  examples. 
The  great  majority  of  questions  about  the  readings,  so 
far  as  they  affect  the  translation,  are  such  as  these: 
Whether  we  should  read  "  Jesus  Christ "  or  "  Christ 
Jesus  ;  "  "  the  disciples  "  or  "  his  disciples ; ''  "  and  " 
for  "  but "  or  "  now,"  and  vice  versa  ;  "  Jesus  said  "  or 
"  he  said ;  "  "  he  said,"  or  "  he  saith,"  or  "  he  answered 
and  said  ;  "  whether  we  should  add  or  omit  "  and,"  or 


05  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE    REVISION. 

"  but,"  or  "  for,"  or  "  therefore,"  the  sense  not  being 
affected  ;  whether  we  should  read  "  God,"  or  "  Lord," 
or  "  Christ,"  in  such  phrases  as  "  the  word  of  God,"  or 
"  of  the  Lord,"  or  "  of  Christ ;  "  these  three  words 
differing,  as  abbreviated  in  the  Greek  manuscripts,  by 
only  a  single  letter.  Of  the  more  important  various 
readings,  much  the  larger  part  consists  of  spurious 
additions  to  the  text,  not  fraudulent,  but  originally 
written  as  marginal  or  interlinear  notes,  and  afterward 
taken  into  the  text  by  a  very  common  and  natural 
mistake.  Most  of  these  occur  in  the  Gospels.  For 
instance,  "  bless  them  that  curse  you,  do  good  to  them 
that  hate  you,"  is  probably  not  genuine  in  Matt,  v,  44, 
but  was  inserted  in  the  manuscripts  that  contain  it  from 
the  parallel  passage  in  Luke  vi,  27,  28.  So  the  words 
"to  repentance"  are  wanting  in  the  best  manuscripts 
in  Matt,  ix,  13  and  Mark  ii,  17,  but  were  introduced 
into  later  copies  from  Luke  v,  32. 

For  an  example  of  omission  from  homoeotelcuton,  we 
may  refer  to  1  John  ii,  23 — "  Whosoever  denicth  the 
Son,  the  same  hath  not  the  Father;  but  he  that 
acknowledgeth  tlie  Son  hath  the  Father  also."  Here, 
in  our  English  Bibles,  the  last  clause  of  the  verse  is 
printed  in  italics,  as  of  doubtful  genuineness.  It  is 
unquestionably  genuine;  how  it  was  accidentally 
omitted  in  some  manuscripts  will  be  seen  if  w^e  under- 
stand that  in  the  original  the  order  of  the  words  is  as 
follows:  "he  that  acknowledgeth  the  Son  hath  also 
the  Father,"  the  ending  being  the  same  as  that  of  the 
preceding  clause.  The  coj)yist,  glancing  at  the  ending 
of  the  second  clause,  supposed  he  had  written  it,  when, 
in  fact,  he  had  only  written  the  first. 

For  an  example  of  the  substitution  of  a  word  for 
another  rcBembling  it  in  spelling,  we  may  take  Rev.  i, 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT   TEXT.  89 

5,  where  for  ''■washed  us"  (Xou(7w^zt)^  the  best  manu- 
scripts read  "  loosed,'^  or  "  released  us  "  {Xuriavri).  For 
another,  see  the  margin  of  the  common  version,  Acts 
.xiii,  18. 

I  will  now  give  as  full  an  account  as"  is  possible 
within  moderate  limits  of  the  more  important  and 
remarkable  various  readings,  that  every  one  may  see 
for  himself  to  how  much  they  amount. 

The  longer  passages  of  which  the  genuineness  is  more 
or  less  questionable  are  the  doxology  in  the  Lord's 
Prayer,  Matt,  vi,  13 ;  Matt,  xvi,  2,  3,  from  "  when  "  to 
^'  times"  (most  critics  retain  the  words) ;  xvii,  21 ;  xviii, 
11 ;  XX,  16,  last  part  (genuine  in  xxii,  14) ;  xxi,  44 ; 
xxiii,  14 ;  xxvii,  35  (from  "  that  it  might  be  fulfilled  " 
to  "  lots  ") ;  Mark  vi,  11,  last  sentence  ;  vii,  16;  ix,  44, 
46 ;  xi,  26 ;  xv,  28 ;  xvi,  9-20  (a  peculiar  and  rather 
difficult  question) ;  Luke  ix,  55,  56,  from  "  and  said  " 
to  "  save  them ;  "  xvii,  36  ;  xxii,  43,  44  (most  critics 
retain  the  passage) ;  xxiii,  17,  34,  first  sentence  (most 
critics  retain  it);  xxiv,  12,  40;  John  v,  3,  4,  from 
^'  waiting"  to  "  he  had"  inclusive  (most  critics  reject 
this);  vii,  53 — viii,  11  (also  rejected  by  most  critics);  xxi, 
25  (retained  by  most  critics) ;  Acts  viii,  37 ;  ix,  5,  6,  from 
"it  is  hard"  to  "unto  him"  (Ifas  no  MS.  authority; 
comp.  xxvi,  14  ;  xxii,  10) ;  xv,  34 ;  xxiv,  6-8,  from  "  and 
would"  to  "unto  thee;"  xxviii,  29;  Eom.  xi,  6,  second 
sentence ;  xvi,  24 ;  1  John  v,  7,  8,  from  "  in  heaven"  to 
"  in  earth,"  inclusive  (the  famous  text  of  the  Three 
Heavenly  Witnesses,  now  rejected  by  common  consent 
of  scholars  as  an  interpolation).  Most  of  the  question- 
'able  additions  in  the  Gospels,  it  will  be  seen  on  exami- 
nation, are  from  parallel  passages,  where  the  words  are 
genuine ;  the  doxology  in  the  Lord's  Prayer  probably 
came  in  from  the  ancient  liturgies  (compare  1  Chron. 


90  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE    REVISION. 

xxix,  11) ;  the  passage  about  the  woman  taken  in  adul- 
tery (John  vii,  53^viii,  11),  and  some  other  additions, 
especially  Luke  ix,  65,  56;  xxiii,  34  (if  this  is  not  genu- 
ine), are  from  early  and  probably  authentic  tradition. 

Of  questions  relating  to  particular  words  or  phrases, 
the  following  are  some  of  the  more  interesting  and 
important:  Whether  we  should  read  in  Matt,  i,  25, 
"  a  son"  or  "  her  firstborn  son"  (compare  Luke  ii,  7) ; 
vi,  1,  "alms"  or  "righteousness;"  xi,  li9,  "children" 
or  "  works  ;"  xix,  16, 17,  "  Good  Teacher,"  and  "  callest 
thou  me  good,"  or  "  Teacher,"  and  "  askest  thou  me  con- 
cerning, what  is  good ;"  Mark  i,  2,  "  in  the  prophets,"  or 
"in  Isaiah  the  prophet;"  ix,-23,  "  If  thou  canst  believe," 
or  simply,  "If  thou  canst!"  Luke  ii,  14,  "good  will 
to  [or  "  among"]  men,"  or  "  among  men  of  good  will" 
(the  latter  expression  meaning,  probablj^  "  men  to  whom 
God  hath  shown  favor") ;  iv,  44,  "  Galilee"  or  "  Judsea;" 
xiv,  5,  "  an  ass  or  an  ox,"  or  "  a  son  or  an  ox;"  xxiii, 
15,  "  I  sent  you  to  him"  or  "  he  sent  him  back  to  us;" 
xxiv,  51,  omit  "  and  was  carried  up  into  heaven  ;"  John  i, 
18,  fead  "  the  only  begotten  Son"  or  "  only  begotten 
God"  (the  words  for  "^Son"  and'"  God"  differ  in  but  a 
single  letter  in  the  old  MSS.);  iii,  13,  omit  "which  is 
in  heaven"  (most  critibs  retain  the  clause) ;  vii,  8,  read 
"  not .  .  .  yet"  or  "  not;"  xiv,  14,  "  ask  anything  in  my 
name,"  or  "  ask  of  me  anything  in  my  name;"  Acts  xi, 
20,"  Greeks"  or  "Hellenists;"  xvi,  7,  "the  Spirit"  or 
"the  Spirit  of  Jesus;"  xx,  28,  "the  church  of  God"  or 
"the  church  of  the  Lord;"  Kom.  xiv,  10,  "the  judg- 
ment-seat of  (yhrist "  or  "the  judgment-seat  of  God;" 
1  Cor.  X,  9,  "tempt  Christ"  or  "tempt  the  Lord;"  xiii, 
3,  "  to  be  burned"  or  "  that  I  may  glory;"  xv,  47,  omit 
"the  Lord;"  2  Cor.  iv,  14,  read  "by  Jesus"  or  "with 
Jesus;"  Eph.  iii,  9,  omit  "  by  Jesus  Christ;"  v,  9,  read 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT   TEXT.  91 

"the  fruit  of  the  Spirit"  or  "the  fruit  of  the  light;" 
V,  21,  "  the  fear  of  God"  or  "  the  fear  of  Christ;""  Col. 
ii,  2,  "  the  mystery  of  God"  or  "  the  mystery  of  God, 
Christ"  (comp.  i,  27;  there  are  several  other  readings); 
iii,  13,  "Christ"  or  "the  Lord;"  15,  "the  peace  of 
God"  or  "the  peace  of  Christ;"  1  Tim.  iii,  16,  "  God 
was  manifest"  or  "  who  "  [or  "  He  who  "]  was  manifest" 
(manifested) ;  1  Pet.  iii,  15,  "  the  Lord  God"  or  "  the 
Lord  Christ,"  or  rather  "Christ  as  Lord;"  Jude  25, 
"  the  only  wise  God  our  Saviour"  or  "  the  only  God 
our  Saviour,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord ;"  Rev.  i,  8, 
"  the  Lord"  or  "  the  Lord  God ;"  iii,  2,  "  before  God  " 
or  "before  my  God;"  xxii,  14,  "that  do  his  command- 
ments" or  "  that  wash  their  robes." 

I  have  sufficiently  illustrated  the  nature  of  the  differ- 
ences in  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  manuscripts; 
we  will  now  consider  their  extent  and  importance.  The 
number  of  the  "  various  readings"  frightens  some  inno- 
cent people,  and  figures  largely  in  the  writings  of  the 
more  ignorant  disbelievers  in  Christianity.  "  One  hun- 
dred and  fifty  thousand  various  readings  !"  Must  not 
these  render  the  text  of  the  E'ew  Testament  wholly  un- 
certain, and  thus  destroy  the  foundation  of  our  faith  ? 

The  true  state  of  the  case  is  something  like  this.  Of 
the  150,000  various  readings,  more  or  less,  of  the  text 
of  the  Greek  New  Testament,  we  may,  as  Mr.  Norton 
has  remarked,  dismiss  nineteen-twentieths  from  con- 
sideration at  once,  as  being  obviously  of  such  a  char- 
acter, or  supported  by  so  little  authority,  that  no  critic 
would  regard  them  as  having  any  claim  to  reception. 
Tliis  leaves,  we  will  say,  7500.  But  of  these,  again,  it 
will  appear,  on  examination,  that  nineteen  out  of  twenty 
are  of  no  sort  of  consequence  as  affecting  the  sense ; 
they  relate  to  questions  of  orthography,  or  grammatical 


*92  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE    REVISION. 

construction,  or  the  order  of  words,  or  such  other 
matters  as  have  heen  mentioned  above,  in  speaking  of 
unimportant  variations.  They  concern  only  the  form  of 
expression,  not  the  essential  meaning.  This  reduces 
the  number  to  perhaps  400,  which  involve  a  diiference 
of  meaning,  often  very  slight,  or  the  omission  or  addi- 
tion of  a  few  words,  sufficient  to  render  them  objects 
of  some  curiosity  and  interest,  while  a  few  exceptional 
cases  among  them  may  relatively  be  called  important. 
But  our  critical  helps  are  now  so  abundant,  that  in  a 
very  large  majority  of  these  more  important  questions 
of  reading  we  are  able  to  determine  the  true  text  with 
a  good  degree  of  confidence.  What  remains  doubtful 
we  can  afford  to  leave  doubtful.  In  all  ancient  writings 
there  are  passages  in  which  the  text  cannot  be  settled 
with  certainty;  and  the  same  is  true  of  the  interpretation. 

I  have  referred  above  to  all,  or  nearly  all,  of  the  cases 
in  which  the  genuineness  of  a  whole  verse,  or.  Very 
rarely,  a  longer  passage,  is  more  or  less  questionable ; 
and  I  have  given  the  most  remarkable  of  the  other  read- 
ings of  interest  which  present  rival  claims  to  acceptance. 
Their  importance  may  be  somewhat  differently  esti- 
mated by  different  persons.  But  it  may  be  safely  said 
that  no  Christian  doctrine  or  duty  rests  on  those  por- 
tions of  the  text  which  are  affected  by  differences  in  the 
manuscripts ;  still  less  is  anything  essential  in  Chris- 
tianity touched  by  the  various  readings.  They  do,  to 
be  sure,  affect  the  bearing  of  a  few  passages  on  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity;  but  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the 
doctrine  by  no  means  dei)eiids  upon  tlu;  reading  of 
those  passages. 

The  nunibor  of  the  various  readings,  which  have 
been  collected  from  more  tlian  five  hundred  manuscripts, 
more  than  a  dozen  ancient  versions,  and  from  the  quo- 


THE    NEW    TESTAMENT   TEXT.  93 

tations  in  the  writings  of  more  than  a  hundred  Chris- 
tian fathers,  only  attests  the  abundance  of  our  critical 
resources,  which  enable  us  now  to  settle  the  true  text 
of  the  'New  Testament  with  a  confidence  and  precision 
which  are  wholly  unattainable  in  the  case  of  the  text 
of  any  Greek  or  Latin  classical  author.  I  say,  enable 
us  now  to  do  this ;  for  in  the  time  of  our  translators  of 
1611  only  a  very  small  portion  of  our  present  critical 
helps  was  available.     This  leads  us  to  consider — 

n.  The  iMiPERFECTioN  OF  THE  Greek  Text  on  which 
OUR  Common  English  Version  of  the  New  Testament 
IS  Founded. — The  principal  editions  of  the  Greek  Tes- 
tament which  influenced,  directly  or  indirectly,  the 
text  of  the  common  version  are  those  of  Erasmus,  five 
in  number  (1516-35) ;  Robert  Stephens  (Estienne, 
Stephanus)  of  Paris  and  Geneva,  four  editions  (1546- 
51);  Beza,  four  editions  in  folio  (1565-98),  and  -^ve 
smaller  editions  (1565-1604) ;  and  the  Complutensian 
Polyglot  (1514,  published  in  1522).  "Without  entering 
into  minute  details,  it  is  enough  to  say  that  .all  these 
editions  were  founded  on  a  small  number  of  inferior 
and  comparatively  modern  manuscripts,  very  imper- 
fectly collated;  and  that  they  consequently  contain  a 
multitude  of  errors,  which  a  comparison  with  older 
and  better  copies  has  since  enabled  us  to  discover  and 
correct.  It  is  true  that  Erasmus  had  one  valuable  manu- 
script of  the  Gospels,  and  Stephens  two  (D  and  L) ; 
Beza  had  also  D  of  the  Gospels  and  Acts,  and  D  (the 
Clermont  MS.)  of  the  Pauline  Epistles ;  but  they  made 
scarcely  any  use  of  them.  The  text  of  the  common 
version  appears  to  agree  more  nearly  with  that  of  the 
later  editions  of  Beza  than  with  any  other ;  but  Beza 
followed  very  closely  Eobert  Stephens's  edition  of  1550, 


94  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE   REVISION. 

and  Stephens's  again  was  little  more  than  a  reprint  of 
the  fourth  edition  of  Erasmus  (1527).  Erasmus  used  as 
the  basis  of  his  text  in  the  Gospels  an  inferior  MS.  of 
the  fifteenth  century,  and  one  of  the  thirteenth  or  four- 
teenth century  in  the  Acts  and  Epistles.  In  the  Revela- 
tion he  had  only  an  inaccurate  transcript  of  a  mutilated 
MS.  (wanting  the  last  six  verses)  of  little  value,  the  real 
and  supposed  defects  of  which  he  supplied  by  translat- 
ing from  the  Latin  Vulgate  into  Greek.  Besides  this, 
he  had  in  all,  for  his  later  editions,  three  MSS.  of  the 
Gospels,  four  of  the  Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles,  and 
^YQ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  together  with  the  text  of 
the  Aldine  edition  of  1518,  and  of  the  Complutensian 
Polyglot,  both  of  little  critical  value.  In  select  pas- 
sages he  had  also  collations  of  some  other  manuscripts. 
The  result  of  the  whole  is,  that  in  a  considerable  num- 
ber of  cases,  not,  to  be  sure,  of  great  importance,  the 
reading  of  the  common  English  version  is  supported  by 
no  known  Greek  manuscript  whatever,  but  rests  on  an  error 
of  Erasmus  or  Beza  (e.  g.  Acts  ix,  5,  6 ;  Rom.  vii,  6 ; 
1  Pet.  iii,  20 ;  Rev.  i,  9,  11 ;  ii,  3,  20,  24 ;  iii,  2 ;  v,  10, 
14 ;  XV,  3 ;  xvi,  5  ;  xvii,  8, 16 ;  xviii,  2,  etc.) ;  and  it  is  safe 
to  say  that  in  more  than  a  thousand  instances  fidelity  to 
the  true  text  now  ascertained  requires  a  change  in  the 
common  version,  though  in  most  cases  the  change  would 
be  slight.  But  granting  that  not  many  of  the  changes 
required  can  be  called  important,  still,  in  the  case  of 
writings  so  precious  as  those  of  the  New  Testament, 
every  one  must  feel  a  strong  desire  to  liave  the  text  freed 
as  far  as  possible  from  later  corruptions,  and  restored 
to  its  primitive  purity.  Such  being  the  need,  we  will 
next  consider — 

III.   Our    Present   Resources    for    Settling  the 
Text. — Our  manuscript  materials  for  the  correction  of 


THE    NEW   TESTAMENT   TEXT.  95 

the  text  are  far  superior,  both  in  point  of  number  and 
antiquity,  to  those  which  we  possess  in  the  case  of  any 
ancient  Greek  classical  author,  with  the  exception,  as 
regards  antiquity,  of  a  few  fragments,  as  those  of 
Philodemus,  preserved  in  the  Herculanean  papyri.  The 
cases  are  very/ew  in  which  any  MSS.  of  Greek  classical 
authors  have  been  found  older  than  the  ninth  or  tenth 
century.  The  oldest  manuscript  of  ^schylus  and 
Sophocles,  that  from  which  all  the  others  are  believed 
to  have  been  copied,  directly  or  indirectly,  is  of  the 
tenth  or  eleventh  century;  the  oldest  manuscript  of 
Euripides  is  of  the  twelfth.  For  the  ^N'ew  Testament, 
on  the  other  hand,  we  have  manuscripts  more  or  less 
complete,  written  in  uncial  or  capital  letters,  and  rang- 
ing from  the  fourth  to  the  tenth  century,  of  the  Gospels 
27,  besides  30  small  fragments ;  of  the  Acts  and  Catholic 
Epistles  10,  besides  6  small  fragments;  of  the  Pauline 
Epistles  11,  besides  9  small  fragments;  and  of  the 
Revelation  5.  All  of  these  have  been  most  thoroughly 
collated,  and  the  text  of  the  most  important  of  them 
has  been  published.  One  of  these  manuscripts,  the 
Sinaitic,  containing  the  whole  of  the  'New  Testament, 
and  another,  the  Vatican  (B),  containing  much  the 
larger  part  of  it,  were  written  as  early  probably  as  the 
middle  of  the  fourth  century ;  two  others,  the  Alex- 
andrine (A)  and'  the  Ephraem  (C),  belong  to  about  the 
middle  of  the  fifth;  of  which  date  are  two  more  (Q  and 
T),  containing  considerable  portions  of  the  Gospels. 
A  very  remarkable  manuscript  of  the  Gospels  and  Acts, 
the  Cambridge  manuscript,  or  Codex  Bez^e,  belongs  to 
the  sixth  century,  as  do  E  of  the  Acts  and  D  of  the 
Pauline  Epistles,  also  N,  P,  R,  Z  of  the  Gospels  and  H 
of  the  Epistles  (fragmentary).  I  pass  by  a  number  of 
small  but  valuable  fragments  of  the  fifth  and  sixth  cen- 


96  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION. 

tiiries.  As  to  the  cursive  MSS.,  ranging  from  the  tenth 
century  to  the  sixteenth,  we  have  of  the  Gospels  more 
than  600 ;  of  the  Acts  over  200 ;  of  the  PauUne  Epistles 
nearly  300  ;  of  the  Revelation  about  100,  not  reckoning 
tlie  Lectionaries  or  MSS.  containing  the  lessons  from 
the  Gospels,  Acts,  and  Epistles  read  in  H:he  service  of 
the  church,  of  which  there  are  more  than  400.  Of  these 
cursive  MSS.  it  is  true  that  the  great  majority  are  of 
comparatively  small  value;  and  many  have  been  imper- 
fectly collated  or  only  inspected.  Some  twenty  or  thirty 
of  them,  however,  are  of  exceptional  value — a  few  of 
very  great  value — for '  their  agreement  with  the  most 
ancient  authorities. 

But  this  is  only  a  part  of  our  critical  materials.  The 
translations  of  the  New  Testament,  made  at  an  early 
date  for  the  benefit  of  Christian  converts  ignorant  of 
Greek,  and  the  very  numerous  quotations  by  a  series  of 
writers  from  the  second  century  onward,  represent  the 
text  current  in  widely  separated  regions  of  the  Christian 
world,  and  are  often  of  the  highest  importance  in  de- 
termining questions  of  reading.  Many  of  these  authori- 
ties go  back  to  a  date  one  or  two  centuries  earlier  than 
our  oklest  MSS.  Of  the  ancient  versions,  the  Old  Latin 
and  the  Curetonian  Syriac  belong  to  the  second  cen- 
tur}^ ;  the  two  Egyptian  versions,  the  Coptic  or  Mem- 
phitic  and  the  Sahidic  or  Thebaic,  probably  to  the 
earlier  part  of  the  third :  the  Peshito  Syriac  in  its  pre- 
sent form  perhaps  to  the  beginning  of  the  fourth;  in 
the  latter  part  of  the  same  century  we  have  the  Gothic 
and  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and  perhaps  the  Etliiopic;  in 
the  fifth  century  the  Armenian  and  the  Jerusalem 
Syriac  ;  and  in  the  sixth  the  Philoxenian  Syriac,  revised 
by  Thomas  of  Ilarkel,  A.  D.  616,  to  say  nothing  of 
several  later  versions,  as  the  Arabic  and  Slavonic. 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT   TEXT.  97 

Since  the  beginning  of  the  present  century  thoroughly 
critical  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament  have  been 
published  by  such  scholars  as  Griesbach,  Lachmann, 
Tischendorf,  and  Tregelles,  in  which  the  rich  materials 
collected  by  generations  of  scholars  l^ave  been  used  for 
the  improvement  of  the  text ;  we  have  learned  how  to 
estimate  the  comparative  value  of  our  authorities;  the 
principles  of  textual  criticism  have  been  in  a  good 
measure  settled :  the  more  important  questions  in  re- 
gard to  the  text  have  been  discussed,  and  there  has 
been  a  steadily  growing  agreement  of  the  ablest  critics 
in  regard  to  them. 

With  this  view  of  what  has  been  done  in  the  way  of 
preparation,  we  will  consider,  finally — 

lY.  The  Ground  for  Expecting  a  Great  Improve- 
ment IN  the  Text  from  the  Work  now  Undertaken 
BY  the  British  and  American  Eevision  Commit- 
tees.— On  this  little  needs  now  to  be  said.  We  have  seen 
that  the  text  from  which  the  common  English  version 
was  made  contains  many  known  errors,  and  that  our 
present  means  of  correcting  it  are  ample.  The  work 
of  revision  is  in  the  hands  of  some  of  the  best  Christian 
scholars  in  England  and  America,  and  their  duty  to  the 
Christian  public  is  plain.  The  composition  of  the  Com- 
mittees, and  the  rules  which  they  follow,  are  such  that 
we  may  be  sure  that  changes  will  not  be  made  rashly ; 
on  the  other  hand  we  may  be  confident  that  the  work 
will  be  done  honestly  and  faithfully.  When  an  im- 
portant reading  is  clearly  a  mistake  of  copyists  it  will 
be  fearlessly  discarded ;  when  it  is  doubtful,  the  doubt- 
fulness will  be  noted  in  the  margin ;  and  the  common 
English  reader  will  at  last  have  the  benefit  of  the  de- 
voted labors  of  such  scholars  as  Mill,  Bengel,  Wetstein, 
9 


98  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE    REVISION. 

Griesbach,  Lachraann,  Tischendorf,  and  Tregelles,  who 
have  contributed  so  much  to  the  restoration  of  the  text 
of  the  i^ew  Testament  to  its  original  purity.  On  the 
EnffUsh  Committee  itself  there  are  at  least  three  men 
who  deserve  to  be  ranked  with  those  I  have  named, 
Professor  Westcott  and  Dr.  Hort,  two  scholars  of  the 
very  first  class,  who  have  been  engaged  more  than 
twenty  years  in  the  preparation  of  a  critical  edition  of 
the  Greek  Testament;  and  Dr.  Scrivener,  whose  labors 
in  the  collation  and  publication  of  important  manu- 
scripts have  earned  the  gratitude  of  all  biblical  students. 
Professor  Lightfoot  is  another  scholar  of  the  highest 
eminence  who  has  given  much  attention  to  the  subject 
of  textual  criticism.  We  may  rely  upon  it  that  such 
men  as  these,  and  such  men  as  constitute  the  American 
Committee,  whom  I  need  not  name,  Avill  not  act  hastily 
in  a  matter  like  this,  and  will  not,  on  the  other  hand, 
"  handle  the  word  of  God  deceitfully,"  or  suffer  it  to  be 
adulterated,  through  a  weak  and  short-sighted  timidity. 
One  remark  may  be  added.  All  statements  about 
the  action  of  the  Revision  Committees  in  regard  to  any 
particular  passage  are  wholly  premature  and  unauthor- 
ized, for  this  reason,  if  for  no  otlier,  that  tlieir  work  is 
not  yet  ended.  When  the  result  of  their  labors  shall 
be  publislied,  it  will  be  strange  if  it  does  not  meet  with 
some  ignorant  and  bigoted  criticism;  but  I  feel  sure  that 
all  intelligent  and  fair-minded  scholars  will  emphati- 
cally endorse  the  judgment  of  Dr.  Westcott,  expressed 
in  the  Preface  to  the  second  edition  of  his  History  ol' 
the  English  Bible  (1872),  "  that  in  no  parallel  case  have 
the  readings  of  the  original  texts  to  be  translated  been 
discussed  and  determined  with  equal  care,  thorough- 
ness, and  candor." 


Il^ACCURACIES  OF  THE  AUTHORIZED  VER- 
SION m  RESPECT  OF  GRAMMAR  AND  EXE- 
GESIS. 

BY   REV.  A.  C.  KENDRICK,  D.D.,  LL.D., 

Professor  of  Greek  in  Rochester  University,  Rochester,  N.  Y. 

Among  the  grounds  urged  for  a  revision  of  our 
version  of  the  Scriptures  are  the  imperfection  of  its 
critical  text,  obscurities  growing  out  of  changes  in 
the  language,  and  arbitrary  variations  in  rendering, 
springing  from  the  lack  of  fixed  or  correct  principles 
of  translation.  Practically,  however,  the  most  impor- 
tant reason  of  all  arises  from  the  progress  which, 
since  1611,  has  been  made  in  grarfimatical  and  ex- 
egetical  science,  as  applied  to  the  Scriptures.  That 
such  progress  should  be  made  would  be  but  to  bring 
Biblical  science  into  accordance  with  all  the  other 
developments  of  the  last  two  centuries.  In  every 
field  of  intellectual  action  during  that  period,  the 
progress  of  the  human  mind  has  been  rapid,  and  its 
achievements  unprecedentedly  great.  It  would  be 
strange,  indeed,  if  in  this  highest  of  all  departments 
of  knowledge  it  should  have  failed  of  corresponding 
advancement.  And  it  has  not.  In  all  the  fields  of 
sacred  learning  the  most  eminent  abilities  and  the 
most  conscientious  industry  have  been  diligently 
employed,  and  in  none,  perhaps,  more  than  in  the 
sphere  of  the  language  and  interpretation  of  the  'New 
Testament..  It  is  then  no  disparagement  to  the  merits 
of  those  eminent  scholars  who  gave  us  our  excellent 
Authorized  Version  that  their  work  in  these  respects 
demands,  revision.  The  fault  was  not  of  the  indi-. 
viduals,  but  of  the  age.     They  lived  near  the  border- 

99 


100  ANGLO-AMERICAN  BIBLE   REVISION. 

land  of  a  splendid  realm  of  sacred  discovery  and 
knowledge,  which  it  was  not  their  privilege  to  enter. 
We  might  well  take  shame  to  ourselves,  if,  however 
individually  inferior,  we  had  not  been  thrown  by  the 
age  itself  somewhat  beyond  and  above  them. 

Of  course  here,  as  in  other  branches  of  the  general 
subject,  we  do  not  pretend  that  the  errors  which  we 
point  out  are  such  as  to  pervert  or  darken  the  general 
teachin2:s  of  the  divine  Word.  The  most  that  can  be 
said  of  them  is  that  they  obscure  individual  passages, 
mar  rhetorical  sj^mmetry,  impede  the  flow  of  a  nar- 
rative or  the  course  of  an  argument,  and  sometimes 
seriously  perplex  the  thoughtful  reader,  making  him 
imagine  the  Bible  to  be  a  much  less  consequential  and 
logical  book  than  it  actually  is.  Thus  to  give  at  this 
point  a  single  illustration.  In  the  opening  of  Hebrews, 
the  writer  sets  forth  the  transcendent  superiority  of 
the  Son  to  the  angels  from  the  vast  disparity  of  their 
name  and  office.  In  illustration  he  cites  from  the 
Psalms : ''  Who  maketh  his  angels  [messengers]  winds; " 
thus  putting  the  angels  on  a  level  with  the  mere  agen- 
cies of  nature.  This  is  perfectly  clear.  But  the 
thoughtful  reader,  who  reads  in  his  Bible,  "  Who 
maketh  his  angels  spirits,"  fails  utterly  to  see  the 
relevancy  of  a  statement  which  in  fact  tends  to  give 
the  angels  the  highest  conceivable  exaltation,  putting 
them  in  essence  on  a  level  with  the  Deity. 

From  the  same  connection  I  will  adduce  another 
illustration.  Tlic  author  just  before  says,  in  latent 
contrast  with  the  stumbling  humbleness  of  the  Son's 
earthly  manifestation,  "  And  when  he  shall  again 
bring  back  into  the  world  the  flrst-begotten,  he  saith  " 
(proleptic  for,  he  will  say), "  Let  all  the  angels  of  God 
worship  him."     But  to  him  who  reads,  "  And  again, 


INACCURACIES   OF   THE   AUTHORIZED   VERSION.       101 

when  he  bringeth  the  first-begotten  into  the  world,  he 
saith,"  etc.,  the  passage  is  an  entire  enigma.  Christ's 
entrance  into  the  world,  at  his  birth  from  the  Virgin, 
was  one  of  humiliation.  The  angels  undoubtedly  did 
worship  him,  but  it  was  no  occasion  for  the  formal 
challenging  of  that  worship.  The  right  translation 
throws  it  forward  to  the  second  coming,  and  brings 
all  into  harmony. 

I.  Errors  in  the  Use  or  the  Greek  Article. — 
But  I  proceed  to  take  up  the  passages  in  some  order, 
and  will  commence  with  illustrations  of  the  use  of 
the  article.  The  Greek  definite  article  in  many  re- 
spects (not  in  all)  squares  precisely  with  the  English. 
It  cannot  always  be  rendered,  but  it  is  no  more  used 
without  a  reason  than  is  the  English  article.  Yet,  of 
its  special  use  and  importance,  the  English  translators 
seem  to  have  had  but  the  faintest  notion,  and  they 
render  or  omit  it  in  the  most  capricious  manner. 
"  Into  a  mountain,"  "  into  a  ship,''  appear  almost  con- 
stantly for  "  into  the  mountain,"  and  "  into  the  ship." 
"  The  [one]  pinnacle  of  the  temple  "  becomes  "  a  pin- 
nacle "  (as  if  there  were  many).  "  A  synagogue " 
stands  for  "  the  synagogue,"  which  implies  the  only 
or  the  chief  one  in  the  place.  Thus,  Luke  vii,  5,  "  He 
hath  built  us  a  synagogue,"  for  "  he  himself  built  us 
our  synagogue."  The  English  version  here  contains 
three  errors,  "  he  "  for  "  himself,"  "  hath  built  "  for 
"  built "  and  "  a "  for  "  the,"  which,  by  a  familiar 
idiom,  we  replace  by  "our."  So  Nicodemus  (John  iii, 
10)  is  lowered  from  "  the  teacher  of  Israel,"  to  which 
rank  the  Saviour  exalts  him,  to  "a  teacher."  In  2 
Tim.  iv,  7,  "  the  good  fight "  (more  exactly,  "the  no- 
ble contest,"  in  contrast  with  the  secular  games  of 
9* 


102  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION. 

Greece),  becomes  "  a  good  fight,"  and  "  the  crown  of 
righteousness,"  which  follows  it,  becomes  "a  crown 
of  righteousness."  In  Ileb.  xi,  10,  we  have  "  a  city 
that  hath  foundations,"  for  "  the  city  that  hath  the 
foundations,"  apparently  of  Rev.  xxi,  19.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  unwarranted  insertion  of  the  article 
in  John  iv,  27,  "  wondered  that  he  was  talking  with 
the  woman,"  instead  of  ''  a  woman,"  quite  changes  the 
ground  of  the  disciples'  wonder.  They  knew  nothing 
of  the  woman's  history.  Their  surprise  was  that  he 
talked  thus  at  length  and  familiarly  with  a  woman. 
So  in  1  Tim.  vi,  6,  "  their  wives  "  should  be  simply 
"women."  The  apostle  is  speaking  of  deaconnesses, 
not  of  the  wives  of  deacons.  In  1  Tim.  vi,  2,  the 
force  of  the  article  with  the  participle  is  not  rec- 
ognized, and  we  have  "because  tliey  are  faithful 
and  beloved,  partakers  of  the  benefit,"  for  the  apos- 
tle's appropriate  and  beautiful  declaration,  "  because 
they  that  partake  of  their  benefaction  are  fiiithful  and 
beloved."  In  1  Tim.  vi,  5,  by  confusion  of  the  sub- 
ject and  predicate  we  have  "supposing  that  gain  is 
godliness  ;  "  the  original  represents  them  as  "  suppos- 
ing that  godliness  is  [a  source  of]  gain."  In  Rom.  i, 
17,  and  iii,  21,  the  definite  article  is  unhappily  intro- 
duced for ''a  righteousness  of  God;"  seriously  dark- 
ening the  argument  by  the  changed  meaning  thus 
forced  upon  the  word  "  righteousness."  But  it  is 
unfortunately  omitted  again  in  the  striking  descrip- 
tion of  John  the  Baptist,  at  John  v,  35  ;  "  he  was  the 
lamp  that  was  burning  and  shining."  The  English 
version  here  doubly  errs  both  in  the  way  of  disparage- 
ment and  of  exaltation.  Of  exaltation,  because  it  ele- 
vates to  an  original  light  him  whom  the  Saviour  desig- 
nates as  only  a  lamp,  shining  with  borrowed  brightness. 


INACCURACIES   OF    THE    AUTHORIZED   VERSION.      103 

Of  disparagement,  in  that  it  omits  the  emphatically 
repeated  article  by  which  Christ  exalts  John  to  a 
single  and  sole  conspicuousness.  He  himself  was  "  the 
light  "  (John  i,  4),  the  fountain  of  all  illumination. 
John  was  but  a  "  lamp,"  shining  as  being  shone  upon  ; 
but  still  the  lamp,  that  was  lighted  and  shining. 
Again,  the  name  Christ  is  in  the  Gospels  invariably  an 
official,  not  a  personal  designation.  Here,  therefore, 
the  article  should  always  be  rendered :  thus,  "  the 
Christ,"  viz.,  the  predicted  Anointed  one. 

I  add  one  occasional  misrendering  of  the  article, 
produced  by  the  influence  of  the  Latin  (which  had  no 
article),  viz.,  "  that  "  for  "  the."  Thus  in  John  i,  21, 
25,  we  have  "  Art  thou  that  prophet  ?  "  for  "  Art  thou 
the  prophet  ?  "  and  the  extremely  clumsy,  "  If  thou 
art  not  that  Christ,  nor  Elias,  neither  that  prophet," 
for  "  if  thou  are  not  the  Christ,  nor  Elijah,  nor  the 
prophet."  So  in  2  Thess.  ii,  5,  8,  "the  man  of  sin" 
and  "  the  lawless  one  "  become  "  that  man  of  sin,"  and 
"  that  Wicked  ;  "  while  again,  "  the  falling  away,"  the 
definite  apostasy,  perhaps,  of  Matt,  xxiv,  12,  becomes 
simply  "  a  falling  away." 

II.  Errors  in  Prepositions  and  Particles. — The 
PREPOSITIONS,  in  their  variety  and  delicacy,  are  a  most 
important  element  of  the  Greek  language.  In  the 
rendering  of  these  the  Authorized  Version  is  not 
unfrequently  at  fault,  but  its  err'ors  are  so  compli- 
cated by  ambiguities  in  the  use  of  English  preposi- 
tions, that  I  shall  not  attempt  to  discuss  them  here. 
I  will  simply  remark  that  it  frequently  confounds 
instrumental  agency  {through  me)  with  ultimate 
agency  {by  me) ;  and  sometimes  the  instrumental 
{through   me)   with   the   causal   {because  of  me).     ''On 


104  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION. 


behalf  of,''  at  2  Cor.  v,  20,  is  turned  to  "  instead  of;" 
and  at  2  Thess.  ii,  1,  it  becomes  "by."  The  prepo- 
sition fcv  becomes  needlessly  sometimes  "  by,"  and 
sometimes  "with."  "On  the  clouds,"  at  Matt,  xxiv, 
30,  becomes  "in  the  clouds;"  and  "on  their  hands," 
Matt,  iv,  6,  becomes  "  in  their  hands  ;  "  in  both  cases 
to  the  injury  of  the  figure.  Of  all  the  examples 
here  adduced  that  is  the  most  important  which  ob- 
literates the  distinction  between  the  ultimate  agency 
of  God  (by)  and  the  secondary  agency  (through)  of 
his  prophets,  and  even  of  Christ,  as  his  commissioned 
one. 

The  PARTICLES  are  a  no  less  delicate  element  of 
the  language  than  the  prepositions.  The  New  Testa- 
ment uses  them  but  sparingly,  yet,  in  the  main,  its 
use  of  them  is  thoroughly  classical.  In  rendering 
these,  also,  our  version  is  open  to  serious  criticism. 
One  of  the  simplest  of  them  is  the  connective  5^, 
meaning  strictly  nothing  but  and  and  hut,  though 
'now,  as  a  quasi-rendering,  is  often  a  harmless  accom- 
modation to  English  idiom.  Yet  our  English  ver- 
sion renders  it  almost  indifferently  by  and,  but,  then, 
now,  nevertheless,  moreover,  notwithstanding,  and  when  in 
the  humor  not  to  translate  it,  drops  it  altogether.  In 
Matt,  ii,  22,  Joseph  "was  afraid  to  go  thither,  not- 
withstanding [for,  and']  being  warned,"  etc.  In  Gal. 
ii,  20,  we  have  the  rendering,  "I  am  crucified  with 
Christ:  nevertheless  I  live;  yet  not  I,  but  Christ 
liveth  in  me."  The  elegant  Greek  runs  thus:  "I  have 
been  crucified  with  Christ,  and  no  longer  do  /  live, 
but  Christ  liveth  in  me."  The  particle  fxiv  has  mainly 
but  one  meaning,  that  of  a  concessive  (not  an  em- 
phatic) "  indeed."  The  English  often  drops  it,  leav- 
ing its  force  to  be  given  by  intonation.     In  our  ver- 


INACCURACIES   OF   THE   AUTHORIZED   VERSION.      105 

sion  it  is  sometimes  correctly  given;  sometimes  by 
"  truly,"  which  approximates  it ;  sometimes  it  is 
properly  omitted ;  often  omitted  when  its  retention 
is  important  (Rom.  vii,  25),  and  often  rendered 
"verily,"  which  strictly  it  never  means.  In  Heb. 
ix,  1,  "  There  belonged,  indeed,  now  even  to  the  first 
covenant ;  "  the  two  particles  are  rendered  "  then  ver- 
ily," both  of  them  being  mistranslated. 

III.  Errors  in  Verbs. —  I  pass  to  the  verbs.  The 
errors  here  are  of  various  kinds,  and  difficult  to 
classify.  I  will  mention  first  the  frequent  failure  to 
distinguish  between  imperfect  and  absolute  action. 
Thus  in  Matt,  viii,  24,  the  ship  was  not  "  covered," 
but  being  or  "  becoming  covered  by  (not  with)  the 
waves."  In  Mark  iv,  37,  the  ship  was  not  "  filled," 
but  "filling."  In  Luke  iv,  6,  the  nets  did  not 
"break,"  but  "  were  breaking."  In  Matt,  xxv,  28,  the 
lamps  were  not "  gone  out,"  but  "  going  out."  In 
Matt,  ix,  2,  they  more  picturesquely  "  were  bringing," 
not  "brought,"  "the  paralytic."  In  Heb.  xi,  17, 
Abraham,  in  the  first  instance  (the  verb  is  used  twice 
in  difterent  tenses)  "  hath  offered  up,"  i.  e.,  he  so  stands 
recorded  as  having  in  purpose  offered  up  his  son;  and 
then  the  writer,  reverting  to  the  actual  scene,  says, 
"  and  he  that  had  received  the  promises  was  offering 
.  [had  set  out  to  offer]  up,"  etc.  The  delicate  distinc- 
tions of  the  two  tenses  are  swallowed  up  in  one  com- 
mon mistranslation  ("  offered  ")  of  them  both.  The 
force  of  the  Greek  imperfect  it  is  by  no  means  always 
best  to  try  to  reproduce ;  but  it  is  often  a  pity  to  lose 
it.  Thus  in  Matt,  xxvi,  49,  Judas  "  kissed  "  our  Lord 
once,  as  indicated  by  the  tense,  but  in  Luke  vii,  38, 
and  in  Acts  xx,  37,  the  woman   kissed  repeatedly, 


106  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE    REVISION. 

"  kept  kissing  "  the  feet  of  Jesus,  and  the  anguished 
Ephesians  the  departing  apostle.  In  Luke  i,  59,  the 
parents  of  the  infiint  "  were  calling  " —  were  about  to 
call — but  did  not  "call,"  his  name  Zachariah. 

The  Greek  perfect  tense  is  very  uniform  in  its  use, 
but  is  dealt  with  upon  no  fixed  principle  by  our  trans- 
lators. They  often  confound  it  with  the  present,  as 
Gal.  ii,  20,  "  am  crucified,"  for  "  have  been  crucified," 
Eom.  V,  5,  "  is  shed  abroad,"  for  "  hath  been  shed 
abroad  "  (where  the  distinction  is  important).  Rom. 
iii,  21,  "  is  manifested,"  for  "  hath  been  manifested." 
It  is  quite  as  frequently,  and  more  disadvantageously, 
confounded  with  the  imperfect  or  aorist,  as  John  i,  3, 
"  was  not  anything  made  that  was  made,"  for  "  that 
hath  been  made."  Matt,  xix,  8,  "from  the  beo^innino- 
it  was  not  so,"  for  "  it  hath  not  been  so."  Matt. 
xxiv,  21,  "  Such  as  was  not  since  the  beginning  of  the 
world,"  for  "  such  as  hath  not  been  from  the  begin- 
ning," etc.  John  iv,  38,  "  I  sent  you  to  reap,"  for  "  I 
have  sent  you  to  reap  ;  "  "  others  labored,"  for  "  others 
have  labored."  Heb.  iv,  2,  "  Unto  us  was  the  gospel 
preached,"  for  "  hath  the  glad  message  been  pro- 
claimed "  (/.  e.,  the  promise  of  a  rest) ;  v.  3,  "  as  he  said," 
for  "  as  he  hath  said  ;  "  v.  4,  "  for  he  spake,"  for  "  he 
hath  spoken."  Ileb.  ii,  3,  "  For  this  man  was  counted 
worthy,"  for  "  hath  been  counted  worthy  "  (referring  to 
his  recent  glorification).  1  Cor.  xv,  12,  "Be  preached 
that  he  rose,"  for  "  hath  arisen,"  or  "  hath  been 
raised;"  v.  21,  "the  first-fruits  of  them  that  slept," 
for  "  have  fallen  asleep,"  and  hence,  "  are  sleeping." 

Incorrect  Rendering  of  the  Aortst. —  I  turn  to 
instances  of  the  incorrect  rendering  of  the  aorist.  In 
its  strict   meaning  (/  \t:.rotc^  I  si^okc)^  it  is  one  of  the 


INACCURACIES    OF    THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION.       107 

simplest  of  the  Greek  tenses  ;  its  idiomatic  uses,  how- 
ever, by  which  it  sometimes  represents  our  pluperfect, 
sometimes  our  perfect  (growing  simply  out  of  a  differ- 
ence of  conception),  render  it  somewhat  difficult  to 
handle.  Especially  is  it  hard  sometimes  to  decide 
whether  it  should  be  rendered  strictly  by  our  aorist, 
or  more  idiomatically  by  our  perfect.  But  the 
authors  of  our  version  clearly  have  no  fixed  principle 
to  guide  them.  As  they  often  render  the  perfect  as 
an  aorist,  so  they  often  quite  unnecessarily  render  the 
aorist  as  a  perfect  or  a  present.  I  take  two  or  three 
examples  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  Ch.  v,  12, 
"all  have  sinned,"  for '' all  sinned;  "  vi, '2,  "we  that 
are  dead  to  sin,"  for  "  we  that  died  to  sin  ; "  v.  4, 
"  have  been  buried  with  him,"  for  "were  buried  with 
him;"  v.  6,  "  our  old  man  is  crucified  with  him,"  for 
"was  crucified  with  him  "  (ideally  when  he  was  cruci- 
fied) ;  V.  8,  "  now  if  we  be  dead  with  Christ,"  for 
"and  if  we  died  with  Christ;"  v.  17,  "  but  ye  have 
obeyed,"  for  "but  ye  obeyed,"  viz.,  at  your  conver- 
sion; V.  19,  "just  as  ye  have  presented,"  for  "just  as 
ye  did  present."  Ch.  vii,  4,  "ye  are  become  dead," 
for  "ye  were  made  dead,"  viz.,  when  you  were  united 
with  Christ.  In  2  Cor.  v,  4,  we  have  "  if  one  died 
for  all,  then  were  all  dead,"  instead  of  "  then  did  all 
die."  The  common  version  refers  it  to  their  previous 
death  in  sin ;  the  correct  version  to  their  death  in  and 
with  Christ  to  sin. 

Use  of  the  AoRist  Participle.  —  I  give  a  few  il- 
lustrations of  the  use  of  the  aorist  participle.  It  is 
well  known  that  we  have  no  exclusively  aorist  par- 
ticiple. We  replace  it  primarily  by  our  present  parti- 
ciple used  aoristically,  then  by  our  perfect,  then  by 


108  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE   REVISION. 

the  finite  verb.  Thus  the  Greek  Udv  dirri'k'^sv  is  either 
seeing,  or  on  seeing,  he  departed,  or  having  seen  he  departed, 
or  he  saw  and  departed.  The  Latin,  which  has  neither 
aorist  nor  perfect  active  participle,  very  commonly 
resorts  to  the  circumlocution,  "  lohcn  he  had  seen  he 
departed."  Our  English  translators  have  sometimes 
correctly  adopted  one  or  other  of  the  first  three  ren- 
derings, but  unfortunately  have  very  often  followed 
the  Latin  in  a  construction  almost  necessary  in  Latin, 
but  not  necessary  and  often  clumsy  in  the  English. 
For  "  calling  together,"  they  say  "  when  he  had  called 
together ;  "  for  "  entering  the  house,"  "  when  he  had 
entered,"  and  so  in  narrative  very  commonly.  In 
many  cases  this  gives  an  air  of  freedom  to  our  version, 
and  may  as  well  be  retained,  as  it  probably  will  be  in 
the  present  revision.  Yet  we  have  but  to  read,  for  ex- 
ample, the  narrative  portions  of  the  Acts  alongside 
of  the  original,  to  see  how  unfortunate  is  this  con- 
tinual Latin  influence  upon  the  naturalness  of  the 
diction  of  our  English  version.  Take  as  a  single  and 
familiar  specimen,  Acts  xxi,  3,  "  Now  when  we  had 
discovered  Cyprus,  we  left  it  on  the  left  hand,  and 
sailed,"  for  "  and  coming  in  sight  of  Cyprus,  and 
leaving  it,  etc.,  we  sailed  ; "  vs.  5,  6,  "  we  prayed,  and 
when  we  had  taken  our  leave  one  of  another,"  for 
"  we  prayed,  and  bade  each  other  farewell ; "  v.  7, 
"  and  when  we  had  finished  our  course  from  Tyre,  we 
came,"  etc.,  for  ''but  we,  accomplishing  (or  having  ac- 
complished) our  course,"  etc.  In  some  instances  the 
rendering  involves  serious  misapprehension.  Thus  at 
Luke  xxiii,  46,  we  have  "  and  when  Jesus  had  cried 
with  a  loud  voice,  he  said,  Father,"  etc.,  for  "and 
Jesus,  calling  with  a  loud  voice,  said,  Father."  There 
is  no  good  reason  here  for  supposing  that  the  crying 


INACCURACIES    OF    THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION.       109 

or  calling  and  the  saying,  are  two  distinct  acts. 
Again,  Acts  v,  30,  by  reversal  of  the  natural  order, 
we  have,  "whom  ye  slew  and  hanged' on  a  tree," 
for  "  whom  ye  hanged  on  a  tree  and  slew."  In  Acts 
xix,  2,  we  have  a  mistranslation  of  both  the  aorist  in- 
dicative and  the  participle:  "Have  ye  received  the 
Holy  Ghost  since  ye  believed  ? "  for  "  did  ye  receive 
the  Holy  Ghost  upon  believing,"  or  "  when  ye  be- 
lieved ? "  which  is  a  very  different  idea. 

IV.  Unfortunate  Eenderings. —  I  shall  now  select 
a  few  farther  examples  of  unfortunate  renderings, 
without  attempt  at  classification.  The  distinction 
between  the  indicative  and  subjunctive  moods  in 
conditional  sentences  ("  if  it  Z5,"  and  "  if  it  he ")  is 
habitually  neglected,  of^a,  I  know,  (2  Cor.  xii,  2,)  is 
rendered  /  knew.  Luke  xxi,  19,  "  In  your  patience 
possess  your  souls,"  should  be  "  in  your  endurance 
g'ain  {i.  e.,  preserve)  your  souls."  The  verb  to  become 
(jcyvoixai)  is  habitually  confounded  with  the  verb  to  6e, 
and  sometimes  improperly  made  passive.  Thus,  John 
i,  14,  "  The  Word  was  made  flesh,"  for  "  the  Word 
became  flesh."  Heb.  i,  4,  "  Being  made  so  much  bet- 
ter," for  "  becoming  so  much  better,"  or  "  superior." 
Gal.  iv,  5,  "  Made  of  a  woman,  made  under  law,"  for 
"  born  from  a  woman,  coming  under  law."  2  Cor.  iii, 
7,  "  W.as  glorious,"  should  be  "  came  in  glory."  In 
Matt,  xvii,  24,  seq.,  is  an  interesting  account  of  an 
application  to  Peter  to  know  whether  his  Master  paid 
the  "tribute-money,"  and  our  Lord's  explanation  to 
Peter  why  he  should  be  exempted  from  paying  it. 
The  word  in  the  Greek  is  entirely  diflerent  from  the. 
ordinary  word  for  the  tribute  or  custom  paid  to  the 
Eoman  government,  and  clearly  designates  the  Jewish 
10 


110  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE    REVISION. 

half-shekel  paid  to  support  the  temple  service.  Yet, 
this  distinction  is  lost  in  the  translation.  The  reader 
has  no  clue  to  the  special  character  of  the  tribute  re- 
quired, and  the  Saviour's  beautiful  plea  for  exemption, 
based  on  the  fact  that  he  was  the  Son  of  the  Lord  of 
the  temple,  becomes  utterly  unintelligible.  "  Tribute- 
money  "  should  be  "  the  half-shekel "  (see  Ex.  xxx, 
13).  Again,  in  1  Cor.  ix,  26,  27,  the  apostle  refers  to 
the  Grecian  games  of  running  and  boxing.  ••'  I,  there- 
fore, so  run  as  not  uncertainly  ;  I  so  box,  as  not  beating 
the  air ;  but  I  aim  my  blows  at  my  body  [literally,  hit 
my  body  under  the  eye]^  and  lead  it  in  servitude."  Here 
the  generalizing  of  "  box  ''  into  "  fight,"  and  of  "aim- 
ing my  blows  at "  (or  "  chastising ")  into  "  keep 
under,"  almost  entirely  obliterates  the  figure. 

I  give  a  few  important  examples  from  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews.  Ch.  iii,  16,  "  For  some,  when  they 
had  lieard,  did  provoke :  howbeit  not  all  that  came 
out  of  Egypt  by  Moses,"  for  which  read:  ''  For  who, 
when  they  heard,  provoked  him?  ISTay,  did  not  all 
they  that  came  out  of  Egypt  through  Moses?"  Ch. 
iv,  6,  7 :  "  Seeing  therefore  it  remaineth  that  some 
must  enter  therein,  and  they  to  whom  it  was  first 
preached  entered  not  in  because  of  unbelief:  Again, 
he  limiteth  a  certain  day,  saying  in  David,  To-day, 
after  so  long  a  time ;  as  it  is  said.  To-day  if  ye  will 
hear  his  voice,  harden  not  your  hearts."  For  this  in- 
volved passage  read:  " Since,  therefore,  it  remaineth 
that  some  enter  therein,  and  they  who  formerly  re- 
ceived the  glad  promise  entered  not  in  because  of  dis- 
obedience, he  again  fixeth  a  certain  day,  to-day,  say- 
ing so  long  a  time  afterwards  in  David  (as  hath  been 
said  before),  To-day,  if  ye  shall  hear  his  voice,  harden 
not  your  hearts."     At  v.  9,  the  substitution  of  "  rest  " 


INACCURACIES    OF   THE    AUTHORIZED    VERSION.       Ill 

for  "  Sabbatic  rest,"  takes  the  point  out  of  the  argu- 
ment. At  ch.  V,  1,  the  rendering. "For  every  high- 
priest  taken  from  among  men,"  seems  to  select  out  a 
particular  class  of  high-priests,  viz.,  those  taken  from 
among  men.  The  original,  "  For  every  high-priest, 
being  taken  from  among  men,"  points  out,  as  a  char- 
acteristic quality  of  the  high-priest,  that  he  is  taken 
from  among  men.  At  ch.  vii,  18,  19,  is  the  rendering, 
"For  there  is  verily  a  disannulling  of  the  command- 
ment going  before  for  the  weakness  and  unprofitable- 
ness thereof.  For  the  law  made  nothing  perfect,  but 
the  bringing  in  of  a  better  hope  didJ^  For  this  read  : 
"For  there  followeth  an  annulling  of  the  preceding 
commandment  because  of  its  weakness  and  unprofita- 
bleness (for  the  law  brought  nothing  to  perfection), 
and  the  bringing  in  in  its  place  of  a  better  hope."  I 
select  yet  one  more  example.  The  Greek  denarius 
((Jiivapiov)  was  worth  about  seventeen  cents.  Our  ver- 
sion renders  it  by  a  "penny."  When,  therefore,  the 
good  Samaritan  is  mnde  to  take  out  two  pence  for  his 
host,  the  English  reader  is  not  struck  by  his  liberality. 
When  the  householder  agrees  with  his  workmen  for 
a  penny  a  day,  they  would  seem  to  have  better  cause 
for  murmuring  than  that  the  unequal  labors  are  made 
equal  in  compensation.  And  when  the  angel  flies 
through  mid-heaven  crying,  "a  measure  of  wheat  for 
a  ponny"  (in  reality,  less  than  a  quart  for  seventeen 
cents),  the  English  reader  can  hardly  believe  that  he  is 
not  announcing  extraordinary  plenty  instead  of  fam- 
ine prices. 

These  examples  of  infelicities  and  errors  in  the  Au- 
thorized Version  have  been  taken  almost  at  random, 
and  might  be  ihdcfinitely  multiplied.  They  certainly 
are  blemishes,  but  they  only  seriously  mar,  and  by  no 


112  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE    REVISION. 

means  hopelessly  deface,  the  structure  of  our  magni- 
ficent version.  "They  are  spots  on  the  glorious  sun  of 
our  English  embodiment  of  the  divine  Word.  Thanks 
to  God's  gracious  providence,  these  spots  can  not  only 
be  discerned  by  the  telescope  of  knowledge,  but  with 
gentle  hand  can  be  taken  away,  causing  it  to  shine 
with  augmented  brightness. 


TRUE  CONSERVATISM  IF  RESPECT  TO 
CHAJSTGES  m  THE  ENGLISH  AND  THE 
GREEK  TEXT. 


BY   TIMOTHY   DWIGHT,  D.D., 

Professor  of  Sacred  Literature,  Department  of  Theology,  Yale  College,  New 
Haven,  Conn. 


The  Authorized  English  version  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment and  the  Greek  text  on  which  it  was  founded 
have  attained  a  sort  of  independent  existence  of  their 
own.  They  have  been  accepted  for  so  many  genera- 
tions as  the  true  original  and  the  accurate  translation 
of  the  Sacred  Books,  that  to  multitudes  of  persons 
both  in  England  and  America  there  seems  to  be  no 
doubt  that  they,  and  they  only,  are  the  Word  of  God. 
By  reason  of  this  fact  the  reviser  of  the  English  ver- 
sion finds  himself,  at  the  outset  of  his  work,  sur- 
rounded by  a  very  strong  conservative  body,  who  are 
disposed  to  complain  of  and  contend  against  every 
change.  On  the  other  hand,  however,  he  discovers 
another  party,  who  have  not  only  freed  themselves 
from  the  bondage  of  such  views,  but  have  become 
earnest  for  great  alterations  and  improvements,  or 
even  for  an  entirely  new  translation.  As  these  two 
bodies  are  irreconcilably  opposed  to  each  other,  he  is 
compelled  to  consider  them  both,  and  one  of  his  first 
and  most  difiicult  questions  is  as  to  the  plan  which  he 
shall  adopt  in  his  undertaking,  with  reference  to  their 
conflicting  demands.  To  the  consideration  of  the 
proper  way  of  deciding  this  question,  both  with  re- 
spect to  the  English  text  and  the  Greek,  a  few  words 
may  be  suitably  devoted  in  this  series  of  articles. 
10*  113 


114  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE   REVISION. 

I.  In  Eegard  to  the  English  Text.  If  the  work 
undertaken  is  to  be  a  revision,  and  not  a  new  transla- 
tion, it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  the  style  and  vo- 
cabulary of  the  old  version  should  not  be  altogether 
abandoned.  It  would  seem,  indeed,  that  this  position 
is  involved  in  the  very  determination  to  revise,  and 
to  proceed  no  further.  But  not  only  will  this  be  ad- 
mitted. It  will  also  be  held,  as  we  believe,  that,  in 
the  many  changes  which  are  necessarily  introduced  in 
the  process  of  revision,  it  will  be  wiser  and  better  to 
act  upon  conservative,  than  npon  radical,  principles, 
and  even  to  err,  if  it  be  so,  on  the  side  of  the  former, 
rather  than  of  the  latter. 

(1.)  The  first  reason  for  this  has  reference  to  the  suc- 
cess of  the  work  in  meeting  the  public  ajjprobation. 
The  conservative  party  in  this  regard  is  much  the 
most  numerous  section  of  the  religious  community, 
and,  unless  those  who  make  up  this  section  are  to  a 
reasonable  extent  satisfied,  the  revision  cannot  meet 
with  general  acceptance.  They  will  cling  to  the  old 
book,  and  the  new  one  will  soon  be  forgotten.  How- 
ever prudent  it  may  be,  in  other  cases,  to  disregard 
the  probabilities  of  ftxilnre,  it  cannot  be  so  here,  for 
the  years  of  labor  will  be  almost  wliolly  lost,  unless 
the  purpose  with  which  they  were  entered  u})on  shall 
be  realized,  namely,  to  introduce  this  revision  into 
the  place  which  has  so  long  been  occupied  by  the 
version  of  King  James's  time.  Nor  is  this  conserva- 
tism of  the  party  alluded  to  an  unreasonable  one. 
The  Bible,  as  it  has  been  read  for  the  last  two  hun- 
dred and  fifty  years,  has  so  wrought  itself  in  its  indi- 
vidual words,  and  its  general  phraseology,  and  its 
sound  as  of  sweet  music,  into  the  hearts  and  experi- 
ence of  Christian  believers,  that  it  must  lose  a  part  of 


CHANGES  IN  THE  ENGLISH  AND  THE  GREEK  TEXT.   115 

its  vital  force,  unless  these  are  preserved.  Any  other 
book  may  be  in  the  language  of  to-day,  but  this  Book 
of  books,  which  binds  us  to  all  the  past  and  all  the 
future,  must  speak  to  us  not  only  with  the  same 
truths,  but  with  the  same  sublime  words,  with  which 
it  spoke  to  our  fathers. 

(2.)  A  second  reason  for  thus  acting  on  conservative 
principles  in  respect  to  changes  is  founded  in  the  fact, 
that  the  intermingling  of  modern  words  with  the  ear- 
lier ones  is  likely  to  destroy  the  harmony  of  the  style, 
and  may  produce  a  worse  result  even  than  an  entire 
remodelling  of  the  whole  after  the  usage  of  our  own 
day  would  occasion.  The  great  problem,  indeed, 
which  the  reviser  has  to  solve  is  how  to  bring  in  the 
new,  without  destroying  the  unity  and  beauty  of  the 
old.  The  fundamental  rule  on  which  the  English  and 
American  companies  are  acting  at  present,  is  probably 
the  best  one  which  could  be  devised  for  the  accom- 
plishment of  this  end.  It  is,  that  where  alterations 
are  necessary  they  shall  be  expressed,  as  far  as  pos- 
sible, in  the  language  of  the  Authorized  and  earlier 
English  versions.  If  the  true  meaning,  that  is,  can 
be  set  forth  by  a  word  within  the  limits  of  the  old 
vocabulary,  it  should  be.  But  if  it  cannot  be  thus  set 
forth,  then  faithfulness  to  the  meaning  requires  that 
a  new  word  shall  be  introduced.  It  is  but  natural, 
and  the  necessary  result  of  the  progress  of  our  lan- 
guage during  two  centuries  and  a  half,  that  it  should 
have  acquired  the  power  of  expressing  by  newly-formed 
words  and  phrases,  or  by  new  uses  assigned  to  old  ones, 
a  clearer  and  more  precise  translation,  in  some  cases, 
of  what  is  found  in  the  original  Greek,  than  was 
possible  in  1611.  It  must,  surely,  be  the  duty  of 
the  reviser  to  take  knowledge  and  advantage  of  this 


116  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION. 

fact,  and  to  consider  his  obligation  to  give  the  reader 
the  exact  meaning  of  the  sacred  writer  as  paramount 
to  everything  else.  If  the  word  self-control  will  con- 
vey to  the  English  reader  the  true  meaning,  in  such 
passages  as  Gal.  v,  23,  Acts  xxiv,  25,  while  temperance, 
by  reason  of  its  limited  sense  as  now  commonly  used, 
is  likely  to  be  misunderstood ;  if  rational  gives  more 
nearly  the  thought  of  Eom.  xii,  1,  than  reasonable;  if 
anxious  in  Luke  x,  41,  Phil,  iv,  6,  and  similar  cases, 
expresses  the  precise  idea,  and  careful  does  not ;  if 
Paul  means  in  Gal.  v,  20,  not  strife,  but  intriguings  or 
caballing s ;  if  the  result  which  patience,  or  rather 
steadfast  endurance,  in  tribulation  works  out.  Pom. 
V,  4,  is  not  experience  but  approval,  or  tested  and  ap- 
proved character;  if  the  uneducated  reader  or  the 
child  does  not  know  that  the  carriages  in  Acts  xxi,  15, 
were  baggage  ;  if  the  prudent  spoken  of  in  1  Cor.  i,  19, 
were  intelligent  or  sagacious,  rather  than  prudent;  if 
Jesus  and  the  disciples  did  not  sit  down,  but  reclined  at 
the  table  at  the  Last  Supi)er,  according  to  the  custom 
of  the  times ;  if  the  reader  can  be  relieved  from  a 
frequent  repetition  of  howbeit,  by  an  occasional  inser- 
tion of  however ;  it  ought  not,  in  these  and  in  numer- 
ous other  and  more  illustrative  cases,  to  be  regarded  as 
a  sufficient  objection  to  the  words  suggested,  that  they 
are  not  found  within  the  limits  of  the  vocabulary  of 
the  Authorized  Version,  or  that  some  such  words  may 
even  belong  only  to  the  language  of  a  more  modern 
era.  But,  even  in  these  cases,  the  reviser  should  ex- 
ercise every  care  and  caution  to  select  his  words  and 
phrases,  if  possil)le,  so  that  they  shall  not  break  in 
harshly  upon  the  harmony  of  the  old  style.  One  of 
his  highest  qualifications  for  his  work  will  be  shown 
by  his  success  at  this  point ;  and  in  no  respect,  prob- 


CHANGES  IN  THE  ENGLISH  AND  THE  GREEK  TEXT.   117 

ably,  will  the  new  Revision,  now  in  course  of  prepara- 
tion, be  more  carefully  scrutinized  or  more  strictly 
judged  than  in  this. 

In  the  progress  of  time  since  our  Authorized  Ver- 
sion was  published,  an  American  language  has,  to 
some  extent,  come  into  being.  Thoroughly  English 
as  we  are  in  this  regard,  we  have  expressions  peculiar 
to  ourselves,  which  are  no  more  provincial  than  the 
corresponding  ones  which  prevail  in  the  mother  coun- 
try. As  the  new  Revision  is  for  the  English-speaking 
world,  of  whom  forty  millions  are  now,  and  one  hun- 
dred millions  soon  will  be,  on  this  side  of  the  ocean, 
it  would  seem  that  some  regard  should  be  paid  to 
this  American  usage.  Fortunately,  however,  there  are 
only  a  few  expressions,  comparatively  speaking,  which 
can  present  themselves  for  consideration  on  this  ground. 
The  true  principles  to  be  adopted  with  respect  to  them 
would  seem  to  be  the  following : 

First.,  Wherever  the  one  nation  can  readily  under- 
stand the  expression  in  common  use  with  the  other, 
but  the  latter  cannot  as  readily  understand  that  of  the 
former,  the  one  which  will  alone  be  comprehended  by 
both  should  be  chosen.  Thus,  for  example,  in  Luke  vi, 
1  and  the  parallel  passages,  where  Jesus  is  spoken  of  as 
going  through  the  corn-fields.,  (which,  according  to  our 
usage,  means  grain-fields.)  the  word  should  be  left  as  in 
the  Authorized  Version,  provided  the  English  people 
understand  by  grain  only  that  which  is  gathered  in 
store-houses;  but,  if  they  also  use  this  word  in  the 
same  sense  as  ourselves,  and  refer  it  to  what  is  in  the 
fields,  it  should  be  changed  to  grain-fields.,  because  corn 
with  us  has  a  special  signification,  which  was  not  in- 
tended by  the  writer  of  the  Gospel  narrative. 

Secondly.,  In  cases  where  there  is  no  such  difficulty 


118  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE    REVISION. 

of  understanding  the  meaning  of  words,  and  yet  there 
is  a  difference  of  usage,  the  form  which  will  adapt 
itself  most  easily  to  both  nations  should  be  adopted. 
A  comparatively  unimportant  example  will  illustrate 
this.  The  region  designated,  in  Matt  iv,  25,  as  beyond 
Jordan  should  be  marked,  in  a  new  revision,  as  beyond 
the  Jordan^  because  the  latter  form  of  expression  is  suf- 
ficiently in  accordance  with  the  usage  of  the  English 
people,  (although  they  have  a  provincial  phrase  corre- 
sponding with  the  former,)  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
in  America  it  is  the  only  form  which  is  ever  employed. 

Thirdly,  In  the  representation,  in  the  marginal  notes, 
of  the  value  of  coins,  this  value  should  be  expressed 
according  to  the  money  system  of  both  nations.  It 
would  seem  clear,  that,  if  the  ordinary  English  reader 
should  be  enlightened  as  to  the  relation  between  the 
Greek  coins  and  his  own,  similar  information  should 
also  be  given  to  the  American  reader. 

Fourthly,  Mere  provincialisms  belonging  to  eithe^ 
of  the  two  countries  should  be  excluded.  Thus  the 
word  translated  meat  in  Matt,  iii,  4,  should  be  ren- 
dered/ooc?,  because  this  is  undoubtedly  its  true  mean- 
ing, and  because  meat,  as  equivalent  to  food,  is  now,  as 
Dr.  Eadie  states  in  his  "  History  of  the  English  Bible," 
a  use  of  that  word  peculiar  to  Scotland.  These  prin- 
ciples and  rules,  indeed,  may  all  be  included  in  the 
general  one,  that  a  revision  designed  for  the  entire 
English-speaking  world  should  employ  such  language 
as  may  best  meet  the  wants  of  the  whole  body  who 
make  up  that  world. 

TT.  In  Hegard  to  the  Greek  Text.  The  principles 
wliicli  govern  the  work  of  revision  here  also  should 
doubtless  bo  conservative.     Notwithstanding  all  that 


CHANGES  IN  THE  ENGLISH  AND  THE  GREEK  TEXT.   119 

has  been  discovered  and  determined  with  reference  to 
manuscripts  and  readings  since  1611,  it  may  be  ques- 
tioned whether  we  have  as  yet  arrived  at  results 
which  can  be  so  generally  established,  to  the  satisfac- 
tion of  all,  as  to  render  the  formation  of  a  universally 
received  text  throughout  the  'New  Testament  possible. 
But,  where  the  leading  authorities  in  textual  criticism 
are  united,  it  can  scarcely  be  regarded,  at  the  present 
day,  as  unwise  or  improper  to  adopt  the  readings 
which  they  accept.  Headings  of  this  class,  as  every 
one  can  perceive,  must  have  such  weighty  and  prepon- 
derating evidence  in  their  favor,  as  to  commend  them 
to  the  judgment  of  all  unprejudiced  persons.  It  will, 
also,  be  clear  to  those  who  have  the  means  of  inves- 
tigating the  subject,  that  there  are  cases,  in  which 
the  leading  authorities  differ  among  themselves,  where 
a  determination  as  to  the  true  text,  and  a  decision 
favorable  to  a  new  reading,  may  safely  be  made.  It 
will  be  better,  however,  to  proceed  with  much  care, 
and  to  introduce  no  change  which  cannot  be  very  suc- 
cessfully defended,  yet,  in  this  department  of  the  revi- 
ser's work,  it  is  not  essential  that  he  should  be  as 
conservative  as  he  is  with  regard  to  the  English  text. 
There  are  several  reasons  why  it  is  not. 

Mrst^  There  is,  of  course,  no  such  peculiar  charm  or 
influence  connected  with  the  style  and  sound,  and  mu- 
sic if  so  it  may  be  called,  of  the  original  text,  which 
has  taken  hold  of  every  Christian  mind,  as  is  found  in 
the  language  of  the  English  version.  Changes  in  the 
Greek  may  be  introduced,  here  and  there,  or  indeed 
frequently,  if  they  are  of  a  minor  character,  and  yet, 
provided  the  general  style  and  rhythm  are  preserved, 
there  will  be  no  grating  on  the  ear  or  the  mind. 

Secondly/,  The  prejudice  of  the  conservative  party  in 


120  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION. 

favor  of  the  old  English  text  is  more  reasonable,  than 
that  which  insists  upon  an  unaltered  Greek  text. 
The  Greek  text  on  which  our  translation  was  founded, 
as  every  person  of  intelligence  in  this  matter  knows, 
was  derived  from  a  few  manuscripts,  mostly  of  sec- 
ondary importance,  and  was  prepared  at  a  time  when 
the  greater  part  of  the  means  which  we  now  have  at 
command  was  wholly  unknown.  The  demand  that 
no  alterations  shall  be  made  in  view  of  new  evidence, 
which  is  brought  by  large  numbers  of  new  witnesses, 
and  by  witnesses  of  far  more  value  than  were  pre- 
viously examined,  is  one  which  would  not  be  pressed 
in  any  other  department  of  knowledge  or  life.  It 
surely  cannot  be  one  which  should  be  listened  to  in 
such  a  work  as  this.  Nor  will  the  Christian  church, 
as  it  appreciates  the  facts  of  the  case,  justify  the  re- 
visers in  so  tar  yielding  to  any  who  make  this  de- 
mand, as  to  refuse  to  introduce  those  alterations  which 
ought  to  be  adopted. 

Thirdly^  The  proper  determination  of  the  Greek  text 
is  a  matter  more  vitally  connected  with  the  precise 
thought  of  the  sacred  writers,  than  is  the  decision 
whether  a  word  of  the  modern  or  of  the  earlier  Eng- 
lish style  shall  be  used.  The  latter  question  may  be 
one  of  comparatively  little  importance  in  many  cases, 
but  the  former  is  one  in  which  all  Christians,  whose  ear- 
nest desire  must  be  to  know,  so  far  as  may  be  possible, 
exactly  what  the  Evangelists  and  Apostles  said,  have 
the  greatest  interest.  To  settle  this  question  accord- 
ing to  the  evidence  at  command,  and  with  a  conscien- 
tious regard  for  the  facts  of  the  case,  wlji(;h  shall  be 
overborne  neither  l)y  any  extreme  conservative,  nor  by 
any  excessively  radical  views,  should  be  looked  upon 
by  the  reviser  as  one  of  his  chief  duties. 


CHANGES  IN  THE  ENGLISH  AND  THE  GREEK  TEXT.   121 

Fourthly^  In  most  cases,  it  is  believed,  it  will  be  found 
that  the  changes  which  the  weight  of  manuscript  and 
other  evidence  will  introduce  into  the  Greek  text,  will 
bring  out  the  thought  more  clearly  and  forcibly  and 
felicitously.  Setting  aside  the  passages  in  which  any 
doctrinal  question  may  be  involved,  the  presentation  of 
a  few  examples  of  minor  alterations,  which  are  favored 
by  prominent  textual  critics,  will  justify  this  statement. 

In  Matt,  vi,  12,  instead  of  Forgive  us  our  debts,  as  we 
forgive  our  debtors,  the  reading  should  be,  as  we  also 
have  forgiven  our  debtors ;  the  thought  being,  that  the 
petitioner  should  not  ask  forgiveness  for  himself  un- 
til he  has  already  forgiven  others.  Matt,  x,  23,  when 
they  persecute  you  in  this  city,  flee  ye  into  another,  should 
read  flee  ye  into  the  next,  thus  conveying  not  merely 
the  idea  of  going  to  some  other  place,  but  to  the 
next  town,  and  so  on  until  they  had  proclaimed  the 
gospel  everywhere.  Mark  i,  27,  What  thing  is  this? 
what  new  doctrine  is  this?  for  with  authority  commandeth 
he  even  the  unclean  spirits,  etc.,  should  read.  What  is  this? 
a  new  teaching!  with  authority  he  commandeth  even  the 
unclean  spirits,  etc.,  thus  expressing  the  astonishment  of 
the  beholders  at  the  miracle,  which  they  had  seen,  in 
a  far  more  striking  and  more  natural  way.  Mark  ix, 
22,  23,  where  the  father,  asking  for  the  healing  of  his 
son,  says.  If  thou  canst  do  any  thing,  have  compassion  on 
us,  and  help  us,  the  Authorized  Version  makes  Jesus 
reply.  If  thou  canst  believe,  all  things  are  possible  to  him 
that  believeth.  But  the  approved  text  reads.  If  thou 
canst!  All  things  are  possible  to  him  that  believeth.  The 
force  of  this  form,  which  expresses  surprise  that  the 
question  of  ability  should  arise,  when  to  the  believer 
everything  is  possible,  cannot  fail  to  be  felt  in  com- 
parison with  that  given  in  the  old  version.  In  Luke 
11 


122  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE    REVISION. 

XV,  17  and  22,  the  naturalness  and  emphasis  of  the 
words  are  conspicuous  in  the  additions  of  the  modern 
text ;  where  the  prodigal,  in  contrasting  his  condition 
with  that  of  his  father's  servants,  says,  an^  I  perish 
here  with  hunger,  (Authorized  Version,  I  perish^)  and  the 
father  calls  to  his  attendants  to  bring  forth  quickly  the 
best  robe  (Authorized  Version,  bring  forth).  Luke 
xxiii,  15,  where  the  Authorized  Version  makes  Pilate, 
after  saying  that  he  discovers  no  fault  in  Jesus,  add, 
iVb,  nor  yet  Herod^  for  I  sent  you  to  him,  (the  last  clause 
being  a  mere  parenthetical  statement,  not  in  the  line 
of  the  main  thought,)  the  change  for  the  better,  given 
by  the  new  text,  will  be  appreciated  as  it  should  be. 
No,  nor  yet  Herod,  for  he  sent  him  back  to  us  —  a  jiroof 
that  he  also  found  nothing  to  condemn.  In  John  x, 
4  and  14,  the  slight  alterations  are  improvements: 
When  he  hath  put  forth  all  his  own,  for  his  own;  and, 
I  know  my  sheep  and  my  sheep  know  me,  for  I  know 
my  sheep  and  am  known  of  mine,  in  which  latter  verse 
the  parallelism  with  what  follows  is  more  clearly 
brought  out,  Ureji  as  the  Father  knoiceth  me  and  I  Imow 
the  Father.  In  Acts  xviii,  5,  it  is  more  in  accordance 
with  the  thought  of  the  passage  to  road,  Paul  was 
engrossed,  or  irhoUy  occupied  with  the  word,  than,  as  in  the 
Authorized  Version,  he  7oas  pressed  in  the  spirit.  Again, 
in  Acts  xxiii,  9,  does  not  the  verse  gain  a  new  force, 
if  the  scribes  on  the  Pharisees'  side  are  represented  as 
saying.  We  find  no  evil  in  this  man:  and  2C hat  if  a  spirit 
hath  spoken  to  him,  or  an  angel!  instead  of,  as  in  the  Au- 
thorized Version,  But  if  a  spirit  or  an  angel  hath  spoken 
to  him,  let  us  not  fight  against  God.  In  1  Cor.  vi,  20,  the 
exhortation  is  more  comi)letely  connected  with  the 
subject  under  discussion,  and  therefore  is  more  impres- 
sive, if  the  words  of  the  Authorized  Version,  and  in 


CHANGES  IN  THE  ENGLISH  AND  THE  GREEK  TEXT.   123 

your  spirit  which  are  God's,  are  omitted.  The  Apostle 
has  been  speaking  exclusively  of  the  body,  and  the  best 
text  makes  him  limit  his  exhortation  to  his  converts 
accordingly,  and  call  upon  them  to  glorify  God  in 
their  bodies.  The  somewhat  obscure  passage,  2  Cor. 
i,  20,  is  made  clearer  if  we  read,  as  we  are  authorized 
to  do  by  the  evidence  in  the  case,  For  how  many  soever 
are  the  promises  of  God,  in  him  (Christ)  is  the  yea,  (i.  e. 
the  confirmation  of  them ;)  wherefore  also  through  him 
is  the  Amen,  (i.  e.  the  assent  of  the  church,)  unto  the 
glory  of  God  through  us.  Gal.  v,  1,  is  more  felicitously 
expressed  by  the  modern  text;  For  freedom  did  Christ 
free  us:  standfast  therefore,  than  in  the  Authorized  Ver- 
sion, stand  fast,  therefore,  in  the  liberty  with  which  Christ 
hath  made  us  free.  In  Heb.  xii,  7,  though  some  writers 
have  held  that  the  reading  of  the  Authorized  Version 
alone  is  intelligible,  the  careful  reader  will  approve  of 
the  text  as  supported  by  the  best  authorities,  It  is  for 
chastisement  that  ye  endure ;  God  dealeth  with  you  as  with 
sons,  i.  e.  when  you  are  called  upon  to  endure  suffer- 
ings patiently,  it  is  as  a  parental  discipline,  and  this 
discipline  is  the  end  which  God  has  in  view.  And 
even  in  E.ev.  xxii,  14,  where  the  strongest  evidence  is 
for  the  reading,  Blessed  are  they  that  wash  their  robes,  as 
against  the  Authorized  Version,  that  do  his  command- 
ments, it  may  fairly  be  questioned  whether  it  does  not 
present  us  with  a  finer  and  more  natural  thought,  as  it 
shows  the  author,  at  the  close  of  his  words  respecting 
righteousness,  turning  back  to  the  source  of  all  true  holy 
life,  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ.  Other  examples  might 
be  cited,  which  would  be  illustrative  of  the  same  point, 
but  the  limits  of  the  present  article  will  not  allow  their 
introduction,  and  those  which  have  been  adduced  will 
be  sufficient  to  establish  what  has  been  said. 


124  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE    REVISION. 

Fifthly^  In  the  cases,  comparatively  few  in  number, 
in  which  the  state  of  the  evidence  indicates  that 
words  or  sentences,  whose  loss  will  be  a  matter  of 
regret,  should  be  changed  or  omitted,  the  sound  judg- 
ment of  thinking  men  will  decide  that  it  is  better 
to  give  up  what  does  not  have  a  true  place  in  the 
Scriptures,  than  to  retain  it  merely  because  we  have 
become  familiar  with  it,  and  dislike  to  see  it  no  longer. 
For  example,  in  Luke  viii,  48,  (where  the  question 
of  insertion  or  omission  is  quite  unimportant,  since 
these  words  are  certainly  to  be  found  in  the  parallel 
passage  in  Matthew,)  the  words,  be  of  good  comfort^ 
may  safely  be  omitted,  because  it  can  be  made  clear 
that  the  evidence  against  them  is  strongly  preponder- 
ating. If  the  same  fact  can  be  established  with  regard 
to  verses  of  far  higher  consequence,  as  those  contain- 
ing the  doxology  in  the  Lord's  Prayer,  Matt,  vi,  13, 
or  the  statement  respecting  the  descent  of  the  angel 
at  the  pool  of  Bethesda,  John  v,  3,  4,  or  the  story  of 
the  woman  taken  in  adultery,  John  vii,  53  to  viii,  11, 
or  the  concluding  passage  of  Mark's  Gospel,  xvi,  9  to 
20,  it  will,  within  a  few  years  at  the  latest,  and  after 
the  evidence  has  been  candidly  considered,  be  admitted 
that  the  rejection  of  them  altogether,  or  the  indication 
in  some  way  of  the  condition  of  the  case  as  it  actually 
stands,  is  the  right  course  to  be  taken.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  in  these  or  other  passages,  the  evidence  is  more 
evenly  balanced,  but  yet  is  such  as  to  make  them  doubt- 
ful, it  will  be  lield  hy  candid  men  everywhere  that  the 
two  possible  readings  ought  to  be  given  by  the  revis- 
ers;  the  one  which  they  judge  to  be  best  8ui)ported,  to 
be  inserted  in  the  text,  and  the  other  in  the  margin. 

Sixthly,  In  the  case  of  i)assages  where  different  read- 
ings are  found  in  the  Greek  text,  and  where,  at  the 


CHANGES   IN    THE    ENGLISH    AND    THE   GREEK    TEXT.      125 

same  time,  doctrines  are  involved,  the  course  which 
has  just  been  alluded  to  must  be  the  fair  and  proper 
one.  Happily  these  passages  are  few  in  number,  and 
they  are  not  vital  to  the  establishment  of  the  doc- 
trines ;  but,  if  the  Revision  does  not  deal  honestly 
with  them,  it  cannot  satisfy  the  enlightened  judgment 
of  the  Church.  If  the  evidence  in  any  particular  case 
stands  as  ninety  or  ninety-nine  to  one  against  the  gen- 
uineness of  a  verse,  the  verse  in  question  should  be 
treated  accordingly.  If  it  is  but  as  fifty  to  forty,  the 
Eevised  Version  should  give  the  translation  of  the 
better  accredited  reading  in  the  text,  and  should  add, 
in  the  margin,  the  alternate  reading  with  some  state- 
ment as  to  the  degree  of  support  which  it  can  claim. 

With  respect  to  all  these  doubtful  passages,  and  all 
those  which  clearly  ought  to  be  rejected,  such  changes 
may  be  introduced  into  the  Greek  text  on  which  our 
Authorized  Version  was  founded,  as  shall  prove  wor- 
thy of  adoption  either  for  the  text  or  the  margin  of 
the  new  Revision,  without  violating  the  just  demands 
of  conservatism.  On  the  other  hand,  no  changes  of 
a  more  sweeping  character  can  be  insisted  upon  by 
those  who  are  not  radical  in  an  extreme  and  unworthy 
sense.  The  constitution  of  a  body  like  the  present 
Anglo-American  Committee  of  Revisers,  which  repre- 
sents both  countries  and  many  denominations,  and  the 
rules  of  which  require  a  two-thirds  vote  for  every  al- 
teration before  it  can  be  finally  adopted,  is  the  best  guar- 
antee that,  in  regard  to  the  Greek  text  as  well  as  the 
English,  the  progressive  element  will  be  sufiiciently 
tempered  and  guided  by  the  conservative,  while  the 
conservative  will  have  the  truly  healthful  influence  of 
the  progressive.  By  reason  of  this  fact  the  success  of  the 
'New  Revision  may  be  hoped  for  with  great  confidence. 
11* 


THE  GEEEK  VERB  m  THE  ^^W  TESTAMEN^T. 

BY  THE  REV.  MATTHEW  B.  RIDDLE,  D.D., 
Professor  of  New  Testament  Exegesis  in  Theological  Seminary,  Hartford,  Conn. 

'No  revision  can  present  to  the  English  reader  all 
the  exact  shades  of  meaning  expressed  by  the  voices, 
moods,  and  tenses  of  the  Greek  verb.  This  must  be 
admitted  at  the  outset.  Yet  in  many  cases  greater 
accuracy  can  be  secured.  It  is  doubtful  whether  the 
true  theory  of  the  Greek  tenses  was  accepted  at  the 
time  the  Authorized  Version  was  made.  It  is  certain 
that  a  great  deal  of  ignorance  still  exists  on  this  sub- 
ject, even  among  tliose  claiming  some  scholarship. 
If  there  be  one  point  clearly  established,  it  is  that  in 
Greek  a  writer  used  the  aorist  tense  to  express  an 
action  conceived  of  by  him  as  momentary  rather  than 
continuous.  Yet  a  long  article  in  one  of  our  prom- 
inent Reviews  states  that  the  aorist  refers  to  past  time 
of  indefinite  duration.  This  blunder  arose  from  the 
fact  that  the  name  aorist  means  indefinite.  But  the 
indefiniteness  of  the  tense  consists  mainly  in  its  in- 
definite relation  to  other  tenses,  and  not  in  its  indefi- 
nite duration.  Hence,  the  Greeks  might  express  an 
action  the  most  definite  logically  by  this  grammati- 
cally '' indefinite"  tense.  This  example  of  misappre- 
hension may  serve  as  preface  to  some  remarks  on  the 
difiiculty  of  reproducing  the  shades  of  thought  ex- 
pressed by  the  Greek  verb. 

I.  The  Greek  verb  has  three  voices,  while  the  Eng- 
lish has  only  two.  It  has  one  more  mood  than  the 
English,  l)ut  this  one  is  of  rare  occurrence  in  the  New 
Testament.  The  great  difficulty  lies  in  the  fact  that 
it  not  only  has  tenses  for  which  the  English  forms 

126 


THE   GREEK    VERB    IN    THE   NEW    TESTAMENT  127 

furnish  no  exact  equivalent,  but  tenses  are  carried  into 
moods,  and  exist  in  participial  forms  altogether  un- 
known to  our  grammar.  It  may  be  said  that  a  Greek 
author  had  nearly  twice  as  many  forms  at  his  com- 
mand as  we  have,  each  having  its  distinctive  use. 
This,  of  itself,  presents  a  difficulty  to  the  translator. 

II.  The  difficulty  is  enhanced  by  another  fact.  The 
distinctions  of  the  Greek  verb,  especially  of  the  tenses, 
are  not  precisely  identical  with  those  of  the  English 
verb.  A  literal  translation  of  a  tense  in  the  former 
language  into  one  bearing  the  same  name  in  the  latter 
might  be  very  inaccurate.  The  same  is  true  of  Greek 
and  Latin,  German  and  English.  It  is  rare  that  two 
languages,  even  when  they  have  the  same  number  of 
tenses,  present  thereby  the  same  distinctions.  Just 
here,  one  who  speaks  a  foreign  language  quite  well, 
betrays  himself  most  frequently  before  those  "  to  the 
manner  born."  The  Latin  has  fewer  tenses  than  the 
Greek,  and  these  not  exactly  equivalent  to  the  corre- 
sponding Greek  ones.  Hence,  the  translators  of  the 
Authorized  Version,  like  all  the  scholars  of  that 
period,  frequently  lost  sight  of  the  distinctions  of  the 
less  familiar  language,  and  used  those  of  the  Latin, 
which  might,  in  the  case  of  most  of  them,  be  called 
their  second  mother-tongue. 

It  will  not  be  necessary  to  set  forth  in  detail 
here  the  theory  of  the  Greek  tenses.  Suffice  it  to 
say,  that  while  the  distinctions  of  past,  present,  and 
future  appear  in  the  indicative  mood,  there  is  com- 
bined with  these  a  distinction  of  action,  whether 
as  continuous  or  momentary.  In  the  non-indicative 
moods,  the  latter  distinction  is  the  preponderant 
one,  often  the  sole  one;  as,  for  example,  in  the  im- 
peratives,  present   and  aorist.     The   participles   pre- 


128  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION. 

sent  the  same  distinction,  but  they  are  often  only 
condensed  statements  of  what  might  be  expressed  by 
the  indicative.  Hence,  it  is  often  difficult  to  deter- 
mine whether  an  aorist  participle  is  better  translated 
by  our  English  past  or  present  participle,  i.e.,  whether 
it  expresses  an  action  antecedent  to  or  synchronous 
with  the  leading  verb.  A  mechanical  student  of 
Greek  grammar  has  no  difficulty  here  ;  as  a  school-boy 
he  learned  that  TU^a.g  meant  "  having  struck,"  and  so 
he  regards  all  instances  as  equivalent  to  the  English 
perfect  participle.  The  most  convenient  distinction 
of  tenses  is  that  between  the  aorist  and  imperfect 
indicative — the  former  pointing  to  a  past  act  viewed 
as  momentary,  the  latter  to  a  continued  past  action. 
But  in  the  use  of  the  imperfect  there  is  generally  a 
reference  to  some  other  action,  up  to  which  this  "  im- 
perfect" action  continued.  Hence,  the  tense  may  ex- 
press only  the  beginning  of  an  action  which  was  at 
once  interrupted,  or,  on  the  other  hand,  may  refer  to 
an  habitual  or  long-continued  action.  The  perfect  tense 
has  no  equivalent  in  English,  since  it  refers  to  what 
took  place  in  the  past,  and  continues  either  as  part  of 
the  same  action,  or  as  a  result  of  it,  up  to  the  present 
time  of  the  speaker  or  writer.  Here  we  may  use  the 
English  perfect  or  present,  as  seems  most  ap})ropriate; 
but  neither  of  them  expresses  all  that  is  indicated  by 
the  Greek. 

These  distinctions  are  carried  over  into  subjunc- 
tive, participial,  and  infinitive  forms,  and  any  one 
who  bestows  a  moment's  thought  will  see  liow  dif- 
ficult it  is  for  us,  with  our  English  forms,  to  ex- 
press such  shades  of  thought.  Tben  it  will  happen 
that,  there  being  no  exact  English  equivalent,  two 
English  forms  will  be  equally  accurate  or  inaccurate. 


THE  GREEK  VERB  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.    129 

It  will  appear  that  it  is  no  easy  task  to  make  a  faith- 
ful translation,  and  also  that  there  is  little  danger  of 
any  such  excellence  in  the  revision  as  will  supersede 
the  study  of  the  Greek  Testament. 

III.  It  may  be  useful  to  note  some  examples  where 
improvement  seems  both  desirable  and  J)Ossible,  as  well 
as  some  where  it  is  impossible.  These  might  be  in- 
definitely multiplied. 

1.  The  Authorized  Version,  in  hundreds  of  instances, 
renders  the  Greek  aorist  by  the  English  perfect.  This 
is  almost  always  incorrect.  The  simple  English  past 
tense  is  well-nigh  the  exact  equivalent  of  the  aorist. 
In  many  cases,  indeed,  the  meaning  is  scarcely  altered 
by  the  more  exact  rendering,  yet  frequently  the  cor- 
rection is  of  great  moment.  In  Matt,  i,  25,  instead 
of  "  had  brought  forth,"  the  Greek  means  "  brought 
forth;"  in  ii,  2,  "saw"  should  be  substituted  for 
"  have  seen."  Every  chapter  of  the  Gospels  probably 
contains  an  instance  of  this  inaccuracy,  which  occa- 
sionally misleads.  The  use  of  "is  dead"  for  "died" 
is  allowable  in  Matt,  ix,  24,  and  parallel  passages,  but 
in  2  Cor.  v,  14,  "then  were  all  dead"  leads  to  a  mis- 
understanding of  the  passage  ;  "then  [or  therefore]  all 
died"  is  correct.  In  Eom.  v,  12,  "all  have  sinned," 
"have"  is  unnecessary  and  misleading.  There  is  little 
need  of  citing  other  instances,  for  there  is  general 
agreement  as  to  the  correct  English  equivalent  of  the 
aorist. 

2.  In  regard  to  the  Greek  imperfect,  while  its  force 
is  recognized  by  all  scholars,  there  is  great  difficulty 
in  determining  when  we  ought  to  try  and  retain  that 
force  in  English.  We  can  say  "  he  did  this  "  or  "  he 
was  doing  this" — the  former  equivalent  to  the  Greek 
aorist,  and  the  latter  to  the  Greek  imperfect.     Yet 


130  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION. 

the  latter  form  is  cumbrous,  and  if  used  constantly 
would  seriously  injure  the  style.     Furthermore,  even 
this  form  often  fails  to  express  the  exact  meaning  of 
the  Greek  imperfect.     In  Luke  v,  3,  "was  teaching" 
is  more  accurate  than  "taught,"  but  it  is  not  necessary 
to  insist  upon  the  change.     In  verse  7,  however,  "their 
net  brake"   is  incorrect;   the  imperfect  here   means 
"began  to  break,"  though  "their  nets  were  breaking" 
is,  perhaps,  the  best  emendation.     In  verse  7,  "began 
to  sink"  is  the  correct  translation  of  a  present  infini- 
tive, which  has,  in  a  subordinate  clause,  the  general 
force   of   the   imperfect.      So   in   Matt,  ii,  22,  "was 
reigning"   is   the   correct   rendering  of  the   present, 
according    to    the    Greek    conception    of    dependent 
tenses.     In  Matt,  iii,  5,  6,  the  continued  action  is  ex- 
pressed by  imperfects,  but  there  seems  no  necessity  for 
altering  the  English  tenses,  which  here  logically  sug- 
gest this.     In  one  class  of  passages  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  aorist  and  imperfect  is  of  importance,  and 
yet  can  scarcely  be  reproduced.     In  the  six  accounts 
of  the  miracles  of  the  feeding  of  the  multitudes,  the 
breaking  of  the  bread  is  expressed  by  an  aorist;  but 
in  four  of  the  passages  (Matt,  xv,  36,  correct  reading 
Mark  vi,  41,  viii,  6 ;  Luke  ix,  16)  the  giving  of  it  to 
the  disciples  is  descriljed  by  an  imperfect,  thus  hint- 
ing that  the  Lord  kept  giving  the  broken  bread  as  it 
multiplied   in   his   hands.     In   these   cases   it  would 
sound  harsh  to  say  either  "kept  giving"  or  "was  giv- 
ing."    In  Gal.  i,  13,  23,  24,  imperfects   occur  which 
occasion  similar  difficulty.     I'robably   in  more  than 
half  the  cases  the  distinction  cannot  be  recognized  in 
a  smooth  translation. 

3.  The  Greek  fcrfed  is  properly  a  combination  of  the 
aorist  and  present,  expressing  past  action  with  present 


THE   GREEK   VERB   IN   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.         131 

result.  Hence,  we  must  decide  which  element  is  pre- 
dominant, and  translate  accordingly.  In  the  common 
phrase,  "as  it  is  written,"  the  perfect  is  used,  and 
,  properly  rendered  by  a  present;  but  in  Gal.  ii,  20,  "I 
am  crucified  with  Christ,"  ought  to  be  changed  to 
"  have  been  crucified,"  since  the  emphasis  rests  on  the 
past  rather  than  the  present,  both  of  them  being  in- 
cluded. 

4.  Passing  to  the  non-indicative  moods,  we  find  that 
our  forms  do  not,  as  a  rule,  express  the  distinctions  of 
the  Greek.  The  present  and  aorist  subjunctive  ex- 
press respectively  continued  and  momentary  action, 
contingent  on  the  leading  clause,  while  our  potential 
mood  is  not  a  subjunctive  strictly,  and  by  its  tenses 
seeks  to  express  past,  present,  and  future  time. 

The  imperatives  are  distinguished  in  the  same  way, 
but  we  must  translate  them  all  alike,  leaving  to  the 
reader  to  determine  whether  the  action  commanded  is 
once  for  all  or  continued.  In  Matt,  v,  12,  vi,  1,  we 
have  present  imperatives,  but  in  v,  16,  17,  vi,  2,  3,  we 
have  the  aorist.  Further,  the  imperative  in  form  is 
like  the  indicative,  and  it  is  difiicult  to  decide  which 
is  meant.  For  example,  John  vi,  39,  may  mean  "  ye 
search  the  Scriptures"  or  "search  the  Scriptures,"  the 
context  pointing  to  the  former  sense.  In  John  xiv,  1, 
Matt.  V,  48,  and  other  passages,  the  same  question 
arises.  The  infinitives  present  similar  phenomena, 
but  here  there  is  opportunity  for  more  exactness.  The 
translation  of  the  participles  calls  for  great  care. 
The  present  denotes  continuous  action,  as  a  rule,  and 
may  be  fairly  rendered  in  English ;  but  the  combina- 
tions are  such  as  to  require  skilful  handling.  The 
aorist  participle  has  so  often  been  incorrectly  rendered 
by  an  English  past  participle,  that  this,  and  the  corre- 


132  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE    REVISION. 

spending  misapprehension  of  the  indicative,  may  be 
termed  the  chief  blemishes  of  the  Authorized  Version 
as  respects  the  verb.  The  cases  where  an  emendation, 
either  by  the  use  of  the  present  participle  or  by  a. 
change  to  the  indicative  structure,  would  be  desirable, 
may  be  numbered  by  hundreds.  The  perfect  partici- 
ple is  frequently  used  in  the  Greek  Testament,  but  its 
sense  cannot  be  exactly  expressed  in  English  except 
by  a  paraphrase,  as  in  the  case  of  the  indicative. 

5.  The  difference  between  "be"  and  "become"  is 
expressed  in  Greek  by  two  verbs,  which  are  usually 
indiscriminately  rendered  "be"  in  the  Authorized 
Version.  In  Matt,  v,  45,  we  should  read  "that  ye  may 
become,"  etc.  Similar  cases  to  the  number  of  sixty  or 
seventy  occur. 

6.  The  middle  voice  in  Greek  has  no  equivalent  in 
English.  It  is  reflexive,  and  may  sometimes  be  ex- 
pressed by  adding  the  pronouns  himself^  themselces,  etc. ; 
but  no  rule  can  be  laid  down. 

It  will  appear  from  these  remarks  how  numerous 
are  the  questions  which  come  before  the  Revisers,  how 
difficult  many  of  them  are  from  their  minuteness. 
The  effort  has  been  to  present  to  the  l^cw  Testament 
Company  every  question  however  minute,  and  to  dis- 
cuss at  least  the  possibility  of  expressing  in  English 
the  shades  of  meaning  recognized  in  the  Greek.  In 
one  chapter  of  the  Gospels,  containing  twenty-three 
verses,  eleven  emendations  can  be  made  involving  the 
moods  and  tenses,  probably  half  that  number  must  be 
passed  by.  It  may  be  estimated  that  greater  accuracy 
can  be  secured  in  the  vast  majority  of  cases  where  the 
Authorized  Version  is  faulty  in  its  treatment  ^of  the 
Greek  verb. 


UI^WARRANTED  VERBAL  DIFFERE]!TCES  AI^D 
AGREEMENTS  IN  THE  ENGLISH  VERSION. 

BY    PROF.  J.  HENRY   THAYER,  D.D., 

Andover  Theological  Seminary. 

King  James's  translators,  towards  the  close  of 
their  address  "  To  the  Reader,"  remark:  ''We  have 
not  tied  ourselves  to  an  uniformity  of  phrasing  or 
to  an  identity  of  words.  .  .  .  That  we'  should  ex- 
press the  same  notion  in  the  same  particular  word,  as 
for  example,  if  we  translate  the  Hebrew  or  Greek 
word  once  by  purpose,  never  to  call  it  inknt  .  .  .  thus 
to  mince  the  matter  we  thought  to  savour  more  of 
curiosity  than  wisdom  .  .  ." 

This  decision  to  disregard  verbal  identity,  provided 
the  sense  did  not  suffer,  was  a  grave  error.  By  trans- 
lating the  same  word  in  the  original  by  different  Eng- 
lish words,  distinctions  are  inevitably  suggested  where 
they  do  not  exist ;  on  the  other  hand,  by  rendering  dif- 
ferent words  in  the  original  in  one  and  the  same  way, 
differences  in  the  sacred  writers'  thought  are  hidden 
from  the  modern  reader.  No  sensible  man,  it  is  true, 
would  think  of  making  one  word  in  English  uni- 
formly answer  for  each  particular  Greek  or  Hebrew 
term ;  nevertheless,  in  translating  such  a  book  as  the 
Bible,  the  one  supreme  religious  authority  recognized 
by  all  Protestant  Christians  —  in  which,  moreover,  the 
change  of  a  Avord  may  involve  the  change  of  a  doc- 
trine—  the  greatest  pains  should  be  taken  neither  to 
confound  things  which  differ,  nor  to  create  differences 
where  they  do  not  exist. 

Not  that,  with  all  our  pains,  it  is  possible  always  to 
12  133 


134  ANGLO-AMERICAN  BIBLE  REVISION. 

reproduce  in  a  modern  tongue  the  precise  distinctions 
of  the  ancient.  Languages  differ  in  this  respect ;  and 
even  when  the  modern  tongue  is  not,  in  general,  infe- 
rior to  the  ancient  in  the  capacity  for  nice  discrimina- 
tions, it  will  often  deviate  from  it  widely  in  those  it 
actually  makes.  The  distinctions,  for  example,  which 
the  Greek  makes  between  the  various  words  signifying 
to  know^  cannot  well  be  reproduced  in  English.  The 
evil  spirit's  reply  to  the  sons  of  Sceva  (Acts  xix,  15,) 
might  indeed  be  rendered,  "  Jesus  I  know  and  Paul 
I  am  acquainted  witlu''  and  our  Lord's  answer  to  Peter 
(John  xiii,  7,)  would  be  fairly  represented  by  "  What 
I  do  thou  knowest  not  now,  but  thou  shalt  understand 
hereafter ; "  but  it  is  not  easy  to  mark  the  distinction 
in  such  passages  as  these :  1  Cor.  ii,  11,  "  What  man 
knoweth  the  things  of  a  man,  save  the  spirit  of  a  man 
which  is  in  him?  even  so  the  things  of  God  knoweth 
no  man,  but  the  Spirit  of  God ; "  2  Cor.  v,  16,  "  Hence- 
forth know  we  no  man  after  the  flesh :  yea,  though  we 
hare  known  Christ  after  the  flesh,  yet  now  henceforth 
knoiu  we  him  no  more;"  John  xxi,  17,  "Lord,  thou 
knowest  all  things  ;  thou  knowest  that  I  love  thee."  Or 
again,  take  the  verbs  denoting  to  love :  the  touching 
suggestiveness  of  the  interchange  of  words  in  the  three- 
fold "  Lovest  thou  me  ?  "  with  its  reply,  in  the  passage 
last  cited,  must  lie  hidden  from  an  English  reader  by 
reason  of  our  poverty  of  speech ;  so,  too,  must  the 
delicacy  with  which  the  Evangelist  in  chap,  xi,  after 
saying  (ver.  3,)  "  Lord,  behold,  he  whom  thou  lovest  is 
sick,"  instinctively  substitutes  a  less  emotional  term, 
when  he  conies  (in  ver.  5)  to  associate  the  name  of 
Jesus  prominently  with  the  name  of  a  woman:  "Now 
Jesus  lorcd  Martba,  and  her  sister,  and  Lazarus." 
On  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  confessed  that  our 


VERBAL   DIFFERENCES   AND   AGREEMENTS.  135 

occidental  taste  in  matters  of  rhetoric  —  or  rather  our 
English  taste,  for  it  is  doubtless  traceable  mainly  to 
the  influence  of  the  blended  ISTorman  and  Saxon  ele- 
ments in  our  language  —  makes  us  like  a  euphonious 
change  in  the  phraseology,  even  when  there  is  no 
change  in  the  sense.  Such  passages  as  the  following : 
Matt,  xii,  5,  7,  "  Have  ye  not  read  how  that  .  .  .  the 
priests  .  .  .  profane  the  Sabbath  and  are  blameless?  .  .  . 
But  if  ye  had  known  what  this  meaneth  ...  ye  would 
not  have  condemned  the  guiltless  ;  "  Matt  xxv,  32,  ''  He 
shall  separate  them  one  from  another,  as  a  shepherd 
divideth  his  sheep  from  the  goats;"  1  Cor.  xii,  4  sq,, 
"  Now  there  are  diversities  of  gifts,  but  the  same  Spirit. 
And  there  are  differences  of  administrations,  but,"  etc. ; 
Rev.  xvii,  6,  7,  "  I  wondered  with  great  admiration.  And 
the  angel  said  unto  me,  Wherefore  didst  thou  marvel  ?  " 
Jas.  ii,  2,  3,  ''  If  there  come  unto  your  assembly  a  man 
with  a  gold  ring,  in  goodly  apparel^  and  there  come  in 
also  a  poor  man  in  vile  raiment ;  and  ye  have  respect 
to  him  that  weareth  the  gay  clothing,^''  etc.,  most  read- 
ers, looking  merely  at  the  English^  would  prefer  to  let 
stand  as  they  are,  rather  than  to  su])stitute  in  each  some 
single  identical  term  for  the  words  in  italics,  as  con- 
formity to  the  Greek  requires.  Yet,  on  consideration, 
we  see  that  the  biblical  translator  mistakes  his  duty, 
who  compels  even  the  ancient  and  oriental  taste  of  his 
author  to  yield  to  that  which  is  occidental  and  modern. 
But  our  translators'  disregard  of  verbal  coincidences 
and  variations  involves  what  is  far  more  important 
than  any  mere  question  of  taste.  Positive  obscurities, 
amounting  sometimes  to  unintelligibility,  are  due  to 
it.  "What  plain  reader  understands  the  saying  (John 
xiii,  10),  "  He  that  is  washed  needeth  not  save  to  wash 
his  feet,  but  is  clean  every  whit "  ?    Yet  it  becomes 


136  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE   REVISION. 

luminous  when  the  sacred  writer's  change  of  terms  is 
heeded  :  "  He  that  hath  taken  a  hath  needeth  not  save  to 
wash  his  feet  [soiled  even  in  coming  from  the  water], 
but  is  clean  every  whit."  What  unlettered  man  is  not 
thrown  into  perplexity  when  he  reads,  Matt,  xxiii,  35, 
"  of  Zacb arias  son  of  Barachias,  slain  between  the  tem- 
ple and  the  altar  "  ?  Was  "  the  altar,"  then,  not  in 
"  the  temple  " ?  The  clue  to  extricate  him  from  his  per- 
plexity is  given  him  when  the  translator  distinguishes 
—  as  the  original  author  does  — "  the  sanctuary,''  or 
inner  shrine,  from  "  the  temple,"  or  sacred  precincts 
as  a  whole.  To  many  a  child  our  Lord,  in  addressing 
(Luke  xxiv,  25,)  the  two  disciples  on  the  way  to  Em- 
maus  as  '-'-Fools  and  slow  of  beart  to  believe,"  has 
seemed  to  lie  open  to  the  judgment  pronounced  by 
himself  (Matt,  v,  22,)  upon  "  Whosoever  shall  say  to 
his  brother,  thou /ooP'^  the  verbal  identity  in  English 
completely  hiding  from  a  childish  vision  the  radical 
difference  between  the  cases.  Every  reader,  on  the 
other  hand,  would  naturally  judge  that  Luke  makes  a 
far  more  sweeping  statement  than  the  preceding  Evan- 
gelists, when  he  is  represented  as  saying  (xxiii,  44), 
"  There  was  darkness  over  all  the  earth,''  where  they 
only  use  "  land." 

And  though  this  mistaken  mode  of  translating  may 
not  often  hide  the  meaning  of  the  biblical  language,  it 
frequently  blunts  its  point.  That  noteworthy  declara- 
tion by  Clirist  respecting  himself  (Jobn  viii,  58), ''  Be- 
fore Abrabam  was,  I  am,"  gains  greatly  in  force  when 
the  distinction  between  the  passing  nature  of  the  former 
half  of  the  statement  and  the  permanence  of  the  latter, 
marked  in  tbe  Greek  by  the  choice  of  two  different 
verbs,  is  brought  out  in  translation :  "Before  Abraham 
came  into  hrinf/,  I  am."  Paul's  reasoning  in  Uom.  vii,  7,  8 


VERBAL   DIFFERENCES    AND   AGREEMENTS.  137 

— "  I  had  not  known  lust  except  the  law  had  said,  Thou 
shalt  not  covet.  But  sin,  taking  occasion  by  the  com- 
mandment, wrought  in  me  all  manner  of  coiicitpiscence'' 
—  seems  to  an  English  reader  to  halt,  when,  had  the 
translators  but  followed  the  apostle  in  describing -the 
sin  as  it  is  described  in  the  commandment,  the  sequence 
would  have  been  as  close  in  appearance  as  it  is  in  fact : 
"I  had  not  known  coveMng  except  the  law  had  said, 
Thou  shalt  not  covet.  But  sin  .  .  .  wrought  in  me  all 
manner  of  coveting.''  The  rdteration  of  "  comfort  "  in 
the  opening  of  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians 
has  made  many  a  believer's  heart  pulsate  in  blessed 
response  ;  what  a  pity,  then,  that  our  translators  wearied 
of  the  word  sooner  than  the  apostle  did,  who  writes: 
"  Blessed  be  God,  even  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Father  of  mercies  and  the  God  of  all  com- 
fort^ who  comforteth  us  in  all  our  tribulation,  that  we 
may  be  able  to  comfort  them  which  are  in  any  trouble 
by  the  comfort  wherewith  we  ourselves  are  comforted  of 
God.  For  as  the  sufferings  of  Christ  abound  in  us, 
so  our  consolation  [comforf]  also  aboundeth  by  Christ. 
And  whether  we  be  afflicted  it  is  for  your  consolation 
[comforf]  and  salvation  ...  or  whether  we  be  comforted 
it  is  for  your  consolation  [comforf]  and  salvation  .  .  . 
Knowing  that  as  ye  are  partakers  of  the  sufferings,  so 
shall  ye  be  also  of  the  consolation  [comforf].'' 

These  infelicities  are  too  numerous  to  be  classified 
here.  Our  present  limits  will  permit  us  only  to  enu- 
merate—  with  the  addition  of  an  example  or  two  by 
way  of  illustration — some  of  their  unfortunate  effects : 

I.  They  are  an  impediment  to  the  study  of  the  Bible. 

For  they  deprive  the  student  of  the  light  often  shed 

on  the  meaning  of  a  word  by  its  use  in  other  passages, 

as  exhibited  in  an  English  concordance.     He  comes, 

12* 


138  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE  REVISION. 

for  instance,  upon  the  word  "  atonement "  in  Rom.  v, 
11 ;  and,  so  far  as  he  can  discover,  it  occurs  nowhere 
else.  But  a  correct  translation  would  have  enabled 
him  to  recognize  the  term  made  familiar  elsewhere  as 
"reconciliation."  So  in  investigating  the  nature  of 
biblical  "  hope,"  he  is  baffled  by  the  ftict  that  eighteen 
times  out  of  thirty-two  the  translators  have  rendered 
the  verb  by  "trust," — thus  virtually  confounding  the 
first  two  of  Paul's  triad  of  graces.  And  as  respects 
the  third,  "  charity,"  why  should  it  be  known  by  this 
name  almost  invariably  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  and  have  to  be  looked  for  under  the  head- 
ing "  love  "  in  more  than  fourscore  instances  elsewhere  ? 

II.  Again,  they  tend  to  conceal  from  the  English 
reader  delicate  allusions  and  correspondences.  'No 
doubt  the  language  in  1  Pet.  iii,  14  as  it  stands  —  "  If 
ye  sutler  for  righteousness'  sake,  happ)/  are  ye "  — 
])rompts  a  reader  to  think  that  the  apostle  had  our 
Lord's  Beatitude  in  mind ;  but  the  allusion  would 
have  become  indubitable,  had  the  translators  retained 
here  the  ^'•Blessed "  of  Matt,  v,  10.  And  who  would 
imagine  that  the  quotation  given  in  Heb.  iv,  3,  "J.s  I 
have  SW0711  in  my  wrath,  Jf  they  shall  enter  into  my 
rest,"  agrees  verbatim  in  the  Greek  with  the  quota- 
tion given  just  before  (Heb.  iii,  11),  "*S'o  I  sware  in  my 
wrath.  The// shall  not  enter  into  my  rest;"  while  the 
liardly  intelligible  Hebrew  idiom  "  //'  the)/  shall''  is 
rendered  in  the  Old  Testament,  ^^  Sunb/  the)/  shall  not.'' 

III.  Akin  to  the  evil  just  mentioned  is  the  obscurity 
thrown  on  some  of  the  relations  existing  between  the 
several  parts  of  the  sacred  volume. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Komans,  for  instance,  has  many 
points  of  verbal  agreement  with  that  to  the  Galatians, 
80  has  Ephesians  with  Colossians,  2  Peter  with  Jude; 


VERBAL   DIFFERENCES   AND    AGREEMENTS. 


139 


but  the  English  reader  is  hampered,  in  making  such 
comparisons,  by  his  uncertainty  as  to  whether  appa- 
rent agreements  and  differences  are  real  or  not.  Does 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  resemble  in  style  the  Epis- 
tles of  Paul?  The  evidence  of  the  best  translations 
on  such  a  point  is  necessarily  inferior  to  that  of  the 
originals.  But  surely  an  English  Bible  student  is  en- 
titled to  a  more  truthful  representation  of  the  facts  in 
the  case  than  is  afforded  by  the  following  parallel,  in 
which  the  italicized  words  and  phrases  are  all  from 
the  same  Greek  root : 


"Thou  hast  put  all  things  in 
siibjection  under  his  feet.  For 
in  that  he  put  all  in  subjection 
under  him,  he  left  nothing  that 
is  not  put  wider  him.  But  now 
we  see  not  yet  all  things  put  un- 
der him." —  Heb.  ii,  8. 


"For  he  hath  put  all  things 
under  his  feet ;  but  when  he  saith, 
All  things  are  put  under  Jiim^  it 
is  manifest  that  he  is  excepted 
which  did  put  all  ilAn^s,  under 
him.  And  when  all  things  shall 
be  suMued  unto  him,  then  shall 
the  Son  also  himself  be  sudject 
unto  him  that  put  all  things  un- 
der him,  that  God  may  be  all  in 
all."— 1  Cor.  XV,  27,  28. 

Learned  men  are  discussing  the  relation  of  the  first 
three  Gospels  to  each  other,  and  to  some  common  oral 
or  written  source.  But  how  can  we  follow  such  dis- 
cussions with  our  English  Bibles,  when  verbally  iden- 
tical passages  are  made  to  differ  as  follows : 


"  Beware  of  the  scribes,  which 
love  to  go  in  long  clothing,  and 
love  salutations  in  the  marhet- 
places,  and  the  cAi<?/ seats  in  the 
synagogues,  and  the  uppermost 
rooms  at  feasts:  which  devour 
widows'  houses,  and  for  a  pre- 
tence make  long  prayers." — Mark 
xii,  38  s€[. 


"  Beware  of  the  scribes,  which 
desire  to  walk  in  long  roljes,  and 
love  greetings  in  the  marhets,  and 
the  highest  seats .  in  the  syna- 
gogues, and  the  chief  rooms  at 
feasts:  which  devour  widows' 
houses,  and  for  a  shew  make 
long  prayers."  —  Luko  xx,  46 
sq. 


140  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION. 

We  are  not  even  put  in  a  position  always  to  judge 
correctlj'  respecting  the  identity  of  the  several  incidents 
and  discourses  recorded  by  the  diiferent  Evangelists. 
Surely  our  translators  could  not  have  had  the  fear  of 
the  modern  Sunday-school  superintendent  before  their 
eyes  when  they  translated  the  Lord's  Prayer  in  Mat- 
thew (vi,  10),  "  Thy  will  be  done  in  earth.,  as  it  is  in 
heaven,''  but  in  Luke  (xi,  2),  "  Thy  will  be  done  as  in 
heaven,  so  in  earth.'' 

IV.  Further,  the  translators'  neglect  of  verbal  dis- 
crimination hides  in  a  measure  from  the  English  reader 
the  individuality  of  the  biblical  writers.  These  writers 
may  be  recognized,  as  we  recognize  modern  authors, 
by  their  fovorite  words  and  turns  of  expression.  Take 
Mark,  for  example,  who  is  sometimes  represented  as 
the  mere  epitomizer  of  Matthew  and  Luke ;  his  per- 
sonality as  a  writer  manifests  itself  in  a  fondness  for 
particular  classes  of  words,  yes,  strikingly  in  the  use  of 
a  single  adverb — "immediately,"  or  better,  "straight- 
way." So  familiar  a  word  is  found,  of  course,  in  the 
other  two  writers;  Init  it  occurs  in  Mark  nearly  twice 
as  often  as  in  botli  the  others  put  together.  Yet  so 
characteristic  and  simple  a  term  as  this  has  received 
-^ve  different  renderings,  viz.,  "straightway,"  "imme- 
diately," "forthwith,"  "anon,"  "as  soon  as,"  while 
elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament  it  is  also  translated 
"by  and  by"  and  "shortly."  Still  more  numerous, 
and  if  possible  more  marked,  are  the  words  character- 
istic of  John.  Among  them  are  the  verbs  to  atnde  and 
to  bear  ivitness.  Yet  the  former  in  our  translation  has 
seven  different  representatives,  viz.,  abide,  remain,  con- 
tinue, tarry,  (Uvcll,  endure,  be  present — the  iirst  three  being 
brought  together  in  a  single  verse  of  the  First  Epistle 
(ii,  24) ;  and  the  latter  is  translated  ivitness,  bear  wit- 


VERBAL   DIFFERENCES    AND    AGREEMENTS.  141 

ness,  bear  record,  testify,  and  (in  the  passive)  have  good 
report. 

Paul's  peculiarities  as  a  writer  are  too  salient  not  to 
stand  out  even  in  a  translation  which  should  take  no 
pains  to  preserve  them.  The  truthfulness  of  Pale3^'s 
description  of  him,  "  off  at  a  word,''  is  so  generally 
recognized  that  the  phrase  has  become  proverbial. 
"  Use  this  world  as  not  abusing  it,"  (1  Cor.  vii,  31,) 
and  other -of  his  pointed  sayings,  have  taken  rank  as 
popular  maxims.  His  mental  agility  and  adroitness 
in  availing  himself  of  t?he  very  language  of  opponents 
is  now  as  piquant  as  a  repartee,  now  as  convincing  as 
an  argument.  An  oft-quoted  instance,  preserved  by 
our  translators,  is  that  in  Acts  xxvi,  28,  "Almost  thou 
persuadest  me,"  etc. ;  only  it  is  to  be  regretted  that 
they  have  chosen  a  translation  which  the  Greek  will 
not  bear.  But  another  instance  on  the  same  occasion 
they  have  seen  fit  to  conceal.  Paul's  declaration,  "  I 
am  not  mad,"  is  his  dignified  denial  of  the  exact  lan- 
guage of  a  charge  which  they  have  diluted  into, 
"  Thou  art  beside  thyself,"  (Acts  xxvi,  24.)  Still  less 
felicitously  have  they  reproduced  his  retort  to  those 
at  Athens  who  spoke  of  him  as  ''  a  setter  forth  of 
strange  gods."  His  allusion  to  this  disparaging  term 
is  hidden,  and  again  that  to  the  inscription  on  the 
altar,  "  To  an  unknown  god,"  is  quite  perverted  by 
their  rendering :  "  Whom  therefore  ye  ignorantly  wor- 
ship, him  declare  I  unto  you." 

V.  But  still  more  unfortunate  is  the  translators'  in- 
difference to  verbal  agreements  and  variations  when 
it  affects  matters  of  doctrine.  ]^ot  often,  probably, 
is  a  reader  found  so  ignorant  as  to  infer  a  diff'er- 
ence  of  meaning  from  the  change  of  rendering  in 
Matt.  XXV,  46,  ''  These  shall  go  away  into  everlasting 


142  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE   REVISION. 

punishment,  but  the  righteous  into  life  etemaf  But 
the  confusion  occasioned  by  translating  "Hades"  and 
''Gehenna"  identically  in  every  instance  but  one  is 
not  so  harmless.  The  uniform  transfer  of  the  quasi- 
proper  name  ''  Devil,"  corresponding  to  the  Hebrew 
"Satan,"  to  those  beings  called  "demons"  by  the 
orio-inal  writers  is  also  to  be  reocretted.  The  unwar- 
ranted  insertion  of  "  should "  in  Acts  ii,  47  (com- 
pare on  the  other  hand,  1  Cor.  i,  18 ;  2  Cor.  ii,  15), — 
properly,  "  them  that  ivere  being  saved," —  has  probably 
ceased  to  start  false  theological  suggestions ;  but  un- 
doubtedly most  readers  understand  the  words  of  Christ 
to  Bartimseus  in  Luke  (xviii,  42),  "  Thy  faith  hath 
saved  thee,"  to  be  of  immeasurably  higher  import  than 
the  declaration  in  Mark  (x,  52),  "  Thy  faith  hath  made 
thee  whole.^^  That  the  original  term,  indeed,  may 
refer  to  spiritual  healing  is  by  no  means  impossible. 
In  the  case  of  the  "woman  which  was  a  sinner" 
(Luke  vii,  50),  it  clearly  covers  the  forgiveness  of 
sins.  So  that  if  it  were  a  translator's  design  to  inti- 
mate that  the  expression  is  ambiguous  in  the  Greek, 
the  variation  in  rendering  would  perhaps  be  allowable, 
provided  in  each  case  the  alternate  translation  were 
given  in  the  margin  (as  is  actually  done  in  Mark). 
In  any  event,  however,  the  English  reader  should 
know  that  the  language  is  the  same  in  both  Evangel- 
ists, and  the  same  which  is  elsewhere  (Matt,  x,  22 ; 
Mark  v,  34  ;  Luke  viii,  48,)  commonly  rendered,  "Thy 
faith  hath  made  thee  whole."  A  single  additional 
illustration :  every  reader  of  Paul  knows  the  impor- 
tance he  attaches  to  the  doctrine  tliat  "  faith "  is 
"  reckoned  as  righteousness."  But  the  proof-text  from 
the  Old  Testament  (Gen.  xv,  G)  on  which  tbe  doctrine 
rests  is  given  difierently  by  our  translation  every  time 


VERBAL    DIFFERENCES    AND    AGREEMENTS.  143 

Paul  quotes  it  (Rom.  iv,  3,  compare  ix,  22  ;  Gal.  iii,  6) ; 
and  the  verb  itself,  which  may  be  called  one  of  his 
technical  theological  terms,  and  which  constitutes  the 
very  warp  of  his  argument  in  Rom.  iv,  being  used 
eleven  times  within  the  compass  of  twenty-two  verses, 
receives  there  three  different  render ino-s. 

[N'ow,  let  it  be  repeated,  that  it  is  not  always  prac- 
ticable to  preserve  identity  of  language  in  English 
where  it  exists  in  the  original.  Sense  is  more  impor- 
tant than  sound.  The  interests  of  the  former,  there- 
fore, sometimes  dictate  the  sacrifice  of  the  latter. 
But  it  is  evident  that  any  fresh  attempt  at  revision 
must  proceed  upon  the  opposite  principle  to  that 
whiqh  was  unfortunately  adopted  by  King  James's 
revisers. 


AECHAISMS,  OR  OBSOLETE  AND  UMJSUAL 
WORDS  OR  PHRASES,  IK  THE  ENGLISH 
BIBLE. 

BY  REV.  HOWARD  CROSBY,  D.D.,  LL.D., 

Chaucellor  of  the  University  of  New  York. 

The  literature  of  a  language  selves  to  check  its 
changes,  but  not  to  stop  them.  A  living  language 
must  grow,  and  in  the  growth  new  words  not  only 
supply  new  ideas,  but  become  substitutes  for  old  words. 
The  English  of  the  fourteenth  century  had  to  be  read 
with  a  glossary  in  the  sixteenth  century ;  but  the  three 
hundred  years  that  have  elapsed  since  Queen  Elizabeth 
have  not  so  altered  the  language  as  the  preceding  two 
centuries  had  done.  The  abundant  literature  of  the 
latter  period  accounts  for  this  difference,  our  English 
Bible  of  1611  having  probably  had  the  most  influence 
in  this  result. 

It  is  not  the  archaisms  of  our  En2:lish  Bible  which 
constitute  the  most  important  reason  for  a  revised 
translation.  Erroneous  or  obscure  renderings  form  a 
far  more  conspicuous  argument.  But  yet  it  is  very 
true  that  there  are  many  words  and  phrases  in  the  re- 
ceived version  which  the  ordinary  reader  would  be 
likely  to  misunderstand,  the  words  themselves  having 
become  obsolete,  or  their  significations  (or  modes  of 
spelling)  having  undergone  a  change.  We  append  the 
following  as  specimens: 

I.  Change  in  Spelling.  —  "  The  fats  shall  overflow 
with  wine  and  oil"  (Joel  ii,  ^4),  for  "vats."  "Lest 
he  hale  thee  to  the  judge"  (Luke  xii,  58),  for  "haul," 
and  '•'•hoised  up  the  mainsail  to  the  wind  "  (Acts  xxvii, 

lU 


ARCHAISMS   IN    THE    ENGLISH    BIBLE.  14'5 

40),  for  "  hoisted."  "  He  overlaid  their  chapiters  with 
gold  "  (Ex.  xxxvi,  38),  for  "  capitals."  "And  sat  down 
astonied  "  (Ezra  ix,  3),  for  "  astonished."  "Or  ever  the 
earth  was "  (Prov.  viii,  23),  for  "  ere."  So  we  find 
heivray  (betray),  magnifical  (magnificent),  and  delicates 
(delicacies).  Many  of  these  archaisms  in  spelling  have 
been  omitted  in  more  modern  editions  of  our  version, 
as  leese  for  "  lose,"  sith  for  "  since,"  doke  for  "  cloak." 
The  old  plural  "  hosen,"  however,  still  remains,  in  Dan. 
iii,  21,  for  "hose." 

II.  Obsolete  Words. —  "And  they  shall  pass  through 
it,  hardly  bestead'^  (Isa.  viii,  21),  for  "served."  "Be- 
sides that  which  chapmen  and  merchants  brought"  (2 
Chron.  ix,  14),  for  "market-men."  "Old  shoes  and 
clouted  upon  their  feet "  (Josh,  ix,  5) ;  "  took  thence 
old  cast  clouts''  (Jer.  xxxviii,  11),  for  "patched"  and 
"patches."  "!N"either  is  there  any  daysman  betwixt 
us"  (Job  ix,  33),  for  "umpire."  "  Thou  shalt  make 
them  to  be  set  in  ouches  of  gold"  (Ex.  xxviii,  11), 
for  "sockets."  "Doves  tabering  upon  their  breasts" 
(!N'ahum  ii,  7),  for  "  drumming."  "  The  lion  filled  his 
dens  with  ravin'"  (Il^ahum  ii,  12),  for  "plunder."  "He 
made  fifty  taches  of  gold  "  (Ex.  xxxvi,  13),  for  "  catches." 
So  earing  (ploughing),  eschew  (shun),  habergeon  (coat  of 
mail),  hough  (hamstring),  kine  (cows),  and  leasing  (lying). 
"We  may  add  to  these  many  of  the  names  of  animals, 
precious  stones,  etc.,  as  giereagle^  ossifrage,  behemoth, 
leviathan  (these  last  two  being  the  Hebrew  words 
untranslated),  sardius,  ligure,  bdellium, 

III.  Words  Obsolete  in  their  Significations. — 
These  are  the  most  numerous  and  most  important  of 
Bible  archaisms,  because  they  are  likely  to  be  unno- 

13 


146  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION. 

ticed,  and  the  reader  will  thus  form  a  wrong  notion 
of  the  meaning  of  a  statement.  The  manifest  archa- 
isms will  always  set  one  upon  his  guard,  and  lead 
him  to  investigate ;  but  these  words,  having  a  per- 
fectly familiar  look,  suggest  no  need  of  inquiry. 
Who  would  imagine  that  Ezekiel,  saying,  Vas  an 
adamant,  harder  than  flint "  (Ezek.  iii,  9),  and  Zech- 
ariah,  saying,  "  they  made  their  hearts  as  an  adamant 
stone,''  both  referred  to  a  "  diamond"?  The  Hebrew 
word  here  translated  "  adamant "  is  translated  "  dia- 
mond "  in  Jer.  xvii,  1.  The  abjccts,  in  Ps.  xxxv,  15, 
are  the  "dregs  of  the  people."  The  apothecary,  in 
Ex.  XXX,  25,  35;  xxxvii,  29,  and  Eccl.  x.  1,  is  not 
our  druggist,  or  preparer  of  medicines,  but  simply  a 
"maker  of  unguents."  Aha,  in  Ps.  xxxv,  21,  and 
many  other  places,  is  not  an  exclamation  of  one  catch- 
ing another  in  evil  (as  it  now  is  used),  but  of  one 
exulting  over  an  enemy,  and  is  equivalent  to  our 
"hurrah!"  Admired  and  admiration,  in  2  Thess.  i,  10, 
Jude  16,  and  Rev.  xvii,  6,  have  the  old  meaning  of 
"  wondered  at "  and  "  wonder,"  and  not  the  modern 
one  of  delighted  appreciation.  Affect,  in  Gal.  iv,  17, 
has  the  signification  of  "  seek  after  zealously  "  (the 
Latin  "  affectare,"  rather  than  "  afficere  ").  The  pass- 
age means,  "  They  seek  after  you,  but  not  well ;  yea, 
they  would  shut  you  out  from  us,  that  ye  might  seek 
after  them ;  but  it  is  good  to  be  sought  after*  always 
in  a  good  thing."  The  Greek  verb  is  t,r\\6t^,  "  to  desire 
emulously,"  "  to  strive  after."  In  Judges  ix,  53,  "  all 
to  brake  his  skull "  is  usually  understood  as  if  it  were 
"all  to  break  his  skull,"  i.  e.,  "  in  order  to  break," 
whereas,  "all   to"  is   archaic   for  "thoroughly,"  or 

*  Perhaps  the  middle  sense  "  to  be  hnpelled  by  zeal "  is  correct 
here. 


ARCHAISMS   IN   THE  ENGLISH   BIBLE.  147 

"completely.'^  Atonement^  in  the  Old  Testament,  is 
the  translation  of  the  Hebrew  "  chopher,"  a  ransom, 
or  a  cover  for  sins.  See  Ex.  xxix,  36,  and  forty  or 
fifty  other  places.  But  it  really  means  "  at-one-ment," 
or  "  reconciliation,"  the  result  of  the  ransom  or  cover. 
In  the  ]S"ew  Testament  the  word  occurs  only  once 
(Rom.  V,  11),  where  it  means  "  reconciliation,"  (Greek, 
xaraXKayiijv ;)  but  this  meaning  is  now  obsolete.  The 
modern  botch  is  used  exclusively  for  a  clumsy  patch 
or  job ;  but  in  Deut.  xxviii,  27,  it  means  "  ulcer." 
Bravery^  in  Isa.  iii,  18,  signifies  "splendor."  Who 
recognizes  in  the  camphire  of  Solomon's  Song  i,  14 
and  iv,  13  (which  suggests  camphor  1)  the  sweet-smell- 
ing "cypress"?  and  who  imagines  that  the  caterpillar 
of  the  Old  Testament  is  a  locust  with  wings  ?  The 
charger,  in  i^Tum.  vii,  13  and  Matt,  .xiv,  8,  is  a  dish, 
and  not  a  horse ;  the  ladder  of  Gen.  xxviii,  12  is  ?^ 
staircase;  the  turtle  of  Solomon's  Song  ii,  12,  and  Jer. 
viii,  7,  is  not  a  tortoise,  but  a  dove;  and  the  nephews 
of  Jud.  xii,  14 ;  1  Tim.  v.  4 ;  Job  xviii,  19 ;  Isa.  xiv, 
22,  are  grandsons.  The  pommels  of  2  Chron.  iv,  12 
have  nothing  to  do  with  saddles,  but  are  "  globes " 
resting  on  the  summits  of  the  columns.  The  word 
"  quick  "  is  almost  always  misunderstood  in  Ps.  cxxiv, 
3,  "  they  had  swallowed  us  up  qidck,'^  as  if  it  meant 
"  rapidly."  The  passage  means,  "  they  had  swallowed 
us  up  alive."  Prevent,  in  Scripture  means,  "  not  pre- 
vent" [i.  e.,  anticipate),  and  let  means  "  not  let "  {i.  e., 
hinder),  so  completely  have  these  words  turned  over 
in  signification.  The  latter  is  still  used  in  law  phrase 
as  "hinder."  Deal,  in  "tenth  deal"  (Ex.  xxix,  40), 
means  "part."  Outlandish,  in  Neh.  xiii,  26,  means 
simply  "  foreign."  Its  modern  meaning  is  "  clownish." 
The  fenced  cities  of  Num.  xxxii,  17,  are  "walled" 


148  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE    REVISION. 

cities,  and  the  hold  of  Judges  ix,  46 ;  1  Sam.  xxii,  4, 
is  a  "  stronghold."  We  use  "peep"  for  the  eyes  al- 
most altogether ;  hut  in  Isa.  viii,  19 ;  x,  14,  it  is  used 
of  the  mouth  — "  the  wizards  that  peep.^'  The  same 
word  is  translated  "  chatter  "  in  Isa.  xxxviii,  14.  Intreat 
(which  with  us  means  "  beseech")  is  used  for  "  treat," 
as  in  Gen.  xii,  16.  Ensue  (French,  ensuwre)  is  read 
in  1  Pet.  iii,  11  for  ''pursue."  JEmdeMtli/ and  compre- 
hend are  now  used  of  mental  conditions,  but  in  the 
Bible  we  find  them  used  of  physical  conditions.  ''  He 
saw  in  a  vision  evidently''  {i  e.,  clearly),  Acts  x,  3; 
^'comprehended  the  dust  of  the  earth  in  a  measure" 
{i  e.,  grasped),  Isa.  xl,  12;  so  John  i,  5. 

Conversation^  in  Scripture,  never  refers  to  speech, 
but  always  means  "  manner  or  course  of  life."  Curi- 
ous mistakes  have  been  made  even  in  the  pulpit,  by 
not  observing  this.  Comfort,  in  the  present  use,  signi- 
fies "  soothing ; "  but  in  old  English  it  had  the  force 
of  the  Latin  confortare,  and  meant  ''  strengthening." 
"  Comfort  one  another  with  these  words,"  in  1  Thess. 
iv,  18,  is  equal  to  "  strengthen  one  another,"  etc. 
Damn  and  damnation  are  simply  "  condemn  "  and  "  con- 
demnation," as  in  Eom.  xiv,  23  and  1  Cor.  xi,  29. 
"They  shall  dote,''  in  Jer.  1,  36,  is  "they  shall  become 
foolish."  In  Zech.  i,  21,  the  carpenters  came  to  fray 
the  horns,  and  the  reader  supposes  that  this  must 
mean  "  to  plane  "  or  "  to  saw  ;  "  but  it  means  only  "  to 
frighten."  Honest  (Rom.  xii,  17)  and  honcsti/  (1  Tim. 
ii,  2)  have  not  their  present  meanings,  ])ut  are  equiva- 
lent to  our  "honorable"  and  "honor."  So  modest 
(1  Tim.  ii,  9)  is  our  "  moderate"  or  "  seemly."  Unc- 
Hon,  in  1  John  ii,  20,  ha-s  the  meaning  of  "anointing" 
(spiritually  considered),  while  our  modern  use  of  unc- 
tion is  rather  as  "earnestness."      Vocation  (Eph.  iv,  1) 


ARCHAISMS   IN    THE   ENGLISH    BIBLE.  149 

is  the  "  calling  "  of  God  to  be  Christians,  and  not  the 
trade  or  the  occupation  of  life.  Go  to  (as  in  James 
V,  1)  is  our  modern  "come,"  while  "we  do  you  to 
wit"  (2  Cor.  viii,  1)  is  the  translation  of  two  Greek 
words  meaning,  "  we  certify  you."  "We  do  you  to 
wit  "  is,  literally  translated  into  modern  English, 
"  We  make  you  to  know."  We  might  add  another 
list  of  words  whose  signification  has  undergone  a 
slight  shade  of  change  since  King  James's  day,  which 
the  reader  is  almost  sure  to  miss,  but  we  have  already 
surpassed  our  limits. 

Since  writing  the  above.  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot  has  kindly 
sent  me  an  additional  list  of  examples,  which  I  append. 

1.  Changes  i?i  Spelling.  —  In  the  edition  of  1611  we 
find  aliant  or  alient  for  alien  ;  clift  for  cleft ;  chaivs  for 
jaws  ;  cise  for  size  ;  fet  for  fetched  (very  often)  ;  flixe  for 
fliix  (Acts  XX viii,  8) ;  grinne  for  gin  ;  moe  for  more  (re- 
peatedly); ought  for  owed  (Matt,  xviii,  24,  28;  Luke 
vii,  41);  price  for  prize  (1  Cor.  ix,  24;  Phil,  iii,  14); 
rent  for  rend  (often) ;  then  for  than  (constantly) ;  utter 
for  outer. 

2.  Obsolete  Words. —  Boiled  =  swollen,  podded  for 
seed  (Exod.  ix,  31) ;  broided  =  braided  {not  broidered), 
(1  Tim.  ii,  9) ;  bruit  =  report  (Jer.  x,  22;  ^ah.  iii,  19); 
neese^  neesing  =  sneeze,  sneezing  (2  Kings  iv,  35 ;  Job 
xli,  18).  ""       • 

3.  Words  Obsolete  in  their  Significations.  —  Artillery^ 
bow  and  arrows  (1  Sam.  xx,  40) ;  by  and  by  =  im- 
mediately (Mark  vi,  25  ;  xiii,  21 ;  Luke  xvii,  7 ;  xxi, 
9) ;  careful  ==  anxious  (Phil,  iv,  6) ;  careless  =  free  from 
care  (Judges  xviii,  7;  and  so  carelessly^  Isa.  xlvii,  8, 
etc.) ;  carriage  =  baggage  (1  Sam.  xvii,  22 ;  Isa.  x,  28 ; 
Acts  xxi,  15) ;  coasts  =  borders,  territory  (very  often), 
to  fetch  a  compass  (Acts   xxviii,  13) ;   set   a   compass 

13* 


150  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION. 

(Prov.  viii,  27);  convince  ^convict  (John  viii,46;  James 
ii,  9);  desii'e  =^  regret  (Lat.  desiderare\  (2  Chron.  xxi, 
20);  discover  =  uncoYer  (often);  frankly  =  freely  (Luke 
vii,42);  instant=^  earnest  and  instantly  =  earnestlj  (Luke 
vii,  4);  ^iAi?2^  ^condition  (Job  xxxix,  4);  ivith  the  man- 
ner =  in  the  act  (ITum.  v,  13);  ??m/yify=  applied  to  iigs 
(Jer.xxiv,  2);  occi(pi/=^use  ;  deal  in  trade  (Exod.  xxxviii, 
24;  Judg.  xvi,  11 ;  Ezek.  xxvii,  9, 16, 19,  21,  22;  Luke 
xix,  13);  overrun=^  outrun  (2  Sam.  xviii,  23);  painful, 
not  "distressing,"  but  hard^  difficult  (Ps.  Ixxiii,  16); 
^proper  =  beautiful,  goodly  (Heb.  xi,  23);  jmrchase,  not 
"buy,"  but  gain,  acquire  (1  Tim.  iii,  13);  having  in  a 
readiness  =  being  ready  (2  Cor.  x,  6);  road  (make  a 
road)  =  raid  (1  Sam.  xxvii,  10);  sometime  or  sometimes  = 
formerly;  suddenly  =  hastily ,  rashly  (1  Tim.  v,  22); 
take  thought=he  anxious  (1  Sam.  ix,  5;  Matt,  vi,  25); 
upperynost ^  rooms  =high.est  or  most  honorable  places 
(Matt,  xxiii,  6);  usury  =intereSt  (Matt,  xxv,  27);  ivealth 
=  weal,  welfare  (Ezra  ix,  12;  Esther  x,  3;  1  Cor.  x, 
24);  a  wealthy  place  (Ps.  Ixvi,  12);  the  wealthy  nation 
(Jer.  xlix,  31) ;  worship  =  honor  (Luke  xiv,  10);  witty = 
wise,  ingenious  (Prov.  viii,  12);  tree  =heam.  of  wood, 
applied  to  a  gallows,  and  especially  to  the  cross.  See 
the  article  Tree  in  the  American  edition  of  Smith's 
Bible  Dictionary. 


THE  PROPER  :N'AMES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 

BY   KEV.  CHARLES   A.  AIKEN,  D.D., 

Professor  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Princeton,  N.  J. 

Any  complete  revision  of  our  English  version  of 
the  Scriptures  must  bring  under  review  its  proper 
names.  The  conservative  spirit  which  is  pledged  in 
connection  with  the  Anglo-American  Revision  now  in 
progress,  must  protect  them  from  unnecessary  change. 
The  question,  therefore^  is  not.  What  alterations  can 
be  justified  to  scholars  ?  but  rather.  What  are  needed 
in  carrying  out  the  proper  and  declared  aims  of  the 
undertaking? 

Unlearned  readers  of  our  Scriptures,  if  at  all  observ- 
ant, encounter  inconsistencies  and  are  perplexed  by 
obscurities  that  ought  to  be  removed.  'Nov  can  it  be 
regarded  as  a  forced  construction  put  upon  the  de- 
mands of  "  faithfulness,"  if,  within  proper  limits,  the 
names  of  persons,  .peoples,  places,  etc.,  be  made  to  con- 
form somewhat  more  closely  to  their  original  cast. 
Bible  names  are  often  significant ;  and  piety  may  be 
helped  as  well  as  knowledge,  when  the  religious  idea 
embodied  in  many  of  these  names  is  more  clearly  con- 
veyed through  the  improved  form  given  to  them.  If 
this  work  were  an  essay  in  '■■'  spelling  reform,"  the  at- 
tempt would  be  made  to  carry  out  a  rigorously  con- 
sistent system  of  transliteration,  even  though  the 
reader  might  need  a  new  introduction  to  Jizchak  and 
Ribhkah^  and  many  a  family  or  locality  besides.  A 
smile  would  be  very  likely  to  greet  Bmjamin, 

Changes  in  Proper  Names. —  In  many  cases  the 
familiar  proper  names  of  our  old  version,  and  our 

151 


152  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE    REVISION. 

Biblical  and  Christian  literature,  will  remain  undis- 
turbed, although  scholars  may  be  aware  that  this  con- 
sonant and  that  vowel  are  not  represented  by  an  exact 
equivalent. 

He  would  be  unwise  who  would  disturb  names  like 
Abel,  Job,  Solomon,  Balaam,  Euphrates,  Eve,  even  though 
some  of  them  may  conform  to  the  Greek  of  the  LXX 
rather  than  to  the  more  original  Hebrew,  and  others 
to  neither. 

The  general  guiding  principle  should  evidently  be, 
that  the  Hebrew  original  ought  to  determine  the  form 
of  Old  Testament  names,  and  the  Greek  that  of  names 
peculiar  to  the  ISTew  Testament.  Names  common  to 
both  should  consistently  follow  the  older  type.  Ex- 
ceptional treatment  will  be  readily  allowed  in  the  case 
of  names  which  are  quite  conspicuous  and  familiar  in 
their  present  form  in  the  Biblical  narratives,  and  also 
in  the  case  of  those  which  have  a  common  modern  use. 
These  it  would  not  be  wise  to  unsettle. 

Inconsistencies  in  Names. — What  changes  are  desir- 
able ?  Plainly  (1)  changes  that  remove  inconsistencies  within 
the  same  Testament.  "When  one  word  in  the  original 
is  rendered  by  several  different  forms  in  the  trans- 
lation, the  common  reader  is  led  astray.  What  is 
asserted  of  one  person  or  place  he  understands  of  a  num- 
ber. When  the  familiar  plaoe  Gaza  is  called  Azzah  in 
Deut.  ii,  23  ;  1  Kings  iv,  24 ;  Jer.  xxv,  20,  tlie  greater 
correctness  of  the  form  is  no  compensation  for  the 
loss  of  the  identification;  and  for  a  jdace  so  well 
known  tlie  more  familiar  form  should  be  retained. 
(There  is  room  for  diiference  of  opinion  as  to  the 
desirableness  of  using  the  margin  to  instruct  common 
readers  in  such  matters.)    If  in  the  New  Testament 


THE    PROPER   NAMES    OF    THE    BIBLE.  153 

the  famous  city  of  the  Phoenicians  might  he  called 
Sidon,  after  the  Greek  form  of  its  name,  there  is  no 
reason  why  in  the  Old  Testament  the  otherwise  uni- 
form rendering  Zidon  should  be  abandoned  in  Gen.  x, 
15,  19.  While  double  forms  like  Abiah  and  Abijah, 
Uriah  and  Urijah^  may  suggest  that  the  Hebrew  name 
has  two  different  although  closely  related  forms  (from 
both  of  which  the  Greek  form  differs  slightly),  and 
while  different  forms  of  the  name  might  be  arbi- 
trarily assigned  to  different  persons,  it  only  increases 
confusion  when  two  forms  are  employed  of  the  same 
person,  e.  g.^  1  Chron.  iii,  10 ;  2  Chron.  xii,  16,  and 
2  Kings  xvi,  10 ;  Isa.  viii,  2.  There  is  no  apparent 
reason  for  describing  the  same  person  as  Eaos  in  Gen. 
V,  and  Enosh  in  1  Chron  i,  1,  the  form  of  the  Hebrew 
name  being  the  same  in  both  cases ;  so  with  Seth  and 
Sheth.  There  is  nothing  gained  by  calling  the  same  man 
Phuvah  in  Gen.  xlvi,  13,  Pua  in  ]^um.  xxvi,  23,  and 
Puah  in  1  Chron.  vii,  1,  although  there  may  be  two 
slightly  different  forms  to  the  Hebrew  name.  It  may 
be  a  convenience  to  have  three  forms,  Enoch,  Henoch, 
and  Hanoch,  to  represent  one  Hebrew  name  as  borne 
by  four  persons,  but  it  is  not  helpful  to  have  two  of 
these  forms  applied  to  the  same  person  (Gen.  xxv,  4, 
and  1  Chron.  i,  33).  Common  readers  should  be  saved 
all  occasion  to  ask  whether  Jared  and  Jered,  Gazer  and 
Gezer,  Phallu  and  Pallu,  Pharez  and  Perez,  Zerah  and 
Zarah,  Shelah  and  Salah,  are  two  names  or  one.  The 
friendship  of  David  and  Jonathan  has  become  prover- 
bial and  typical ;  why  introduce  the  latter  occasionally 
as  Jehonathan,  in  rigid  recognition  of  the  fact  that  the 
Hebrew  name  has  two  forms?  The  same  principle 
applies  to  Joram  and  Jehoram,  and  several  other  pairs  of 
names.    TliQ^Cainan  of  Gen.  v  and  Kenan  of  1  Chron.  i 


154  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION. 

are  not  understood  by  common  ireaders  to  be  the 
same  name  of  the  same  person.  Ai  and  Hai^  Uz  and 
Hkz,  are  double  forms,  which  if  retained  not  only 
mislead,  but  chronicle  an  error. 

The  inconsistent  treatment  of  forms  like  Jidlaph  and 
Jimnah  as  compared  with  Iscah  and  Ishbak,  or  of  Jethro 
and  Ithrcoi,  is  a  matter  of  much  less  consequence;  for 
here  no  confusion  results.  And  yet  whatever  can  be 
done  quietly  with  inconspicuous  names  will  justify 
itself  to  scholars  with  little  disturbance  to  others. 
Linguistic  or  phonetic  faithfulness  is  neither  dishonor 
to  the  Word  in  its  spirituality,  nor  excessive  scrupu- 
lousness about  its  form.  Yet  such  an  endeavor  should 
be  cautious  in  its  treatment  of  names  conspicuous  in 
the  Biblical  narratives ;  and  all  the  more  if  from  the 
Bible  they  have  passed  to  any  extent  into  our  modern 
nomenclature. 

There  is,  of  course,  no  good  reason  why  Ishmeelite 
should  be  conscientiously  printed  in  Gen.  xxxvii  and 
xxxix,  and  in  1  Chron.  ii,  and  the  more  correct  Ish- 
maelite  everywhere  else ;  nor  why  Zebulunite  should 
always  be  found  in  JSTura.  xxvi,  and  Zebulonite  in 
Judges  xii. 

In  the  j^ew  Testament  there  can  be  no  advantage 
gained  by  perpetuating  such  double  forms  as  Noah  and 
jVoc,  Sinai  and  Slna^  Sodom  and  Sodoma,  Canaan  and 
Chanaan,  Jeremias  and  Jeremy,  Phevicia  and  Phenice 
(with  the  additional  reason  in  this  case  that  Phenice  is 
used  in  Acts  xxvii,  12,  to  translate  inaccurately  another 
name).  The  common  reader  does  not  need  to  be  told 
in  the  very  text  of  his  Bible  how  tlie  Greek  and  He- 
brew forms  of  such  names  may  differ.  Much  less  does 
he  need  to  be  drawn  aside  to  tliink  of  the  contrast  be- 
tween old  English  forms  and  the  Hebrew  and  Greek. 


THE   PROPER   NAMES   OF   THE   BIBLE.  155 

HARMONizma  of  I^ames.  —  There  may  be  room  for 
more  divided  judgment  in  respect  to  (2)  changes  that 
loould  harmonize  the  forms  of  proper  names  common  to  the 
two  Testaments.  These  discrepancies  are  usually  due  to 
differences  between  the  Hebrew  forms  and  those  of  the 
LXX  and  the  E'ew  Testament  Greek.  Our  version  of 
the  New  Testament  generally  conforms  its  proper  names 
in  such  cases  to  the  Greek  type.  This  is  not,  however, 
always  done ;  e.  g.,  David,  Reuben,  Issachar,  Samson,  Sa- 
rah, and  Sodom  (except  in  Rom.  ix,  29),  are  given  in 
their  familiar  and  not  in  their. Greek  form. 

To  the  ends  for  which  our  version  exists,  what  is 
contributed  by  disguising  under  a  Grecian  garb  the 
names  that  have  already  become  well  known  ?  Why 
introduce  the  patriarch  Judah  as  Judas  and  Juda,  or 
the  prophet  Jonah  as  Jonas  f  Ahijah,  Ahaz,  and  Asher, 
are  well  known ;  who  are  Abia,  Achaz,  and  Aser  f  '^o 
help  is  given  to  "  doctrine,  reproof,  correction,  and  in- 
struction in  righteousness,"  by  confusing  to  common 
readers  the  identity  of  those  whose  words  are  quoted, 
or  whose  deeds  and  experiences  are  recorded.  To  pre- 
serve a  more  modern  and  unfamiliar  form  because  it 
agrees  better  with  the  Greek,  divides  and  weakens  the 
unity  and  continuity  of  the  impression  which  should 
be  made  by  the  two  Testaments.  The  letter  is  honored 
at  the  expense  of  the  substance.  We  would  read  still 
of  Hagar  and  Boaz  and  Gideon,  rather  than  of  Agar  and 
Booz  and  Gedeon;  of  Haran  and  Canaan  and  Midian, 
rather  than  of  Charran  and  Chanaan  and  Madian;  of 
Shem  and  Terah  and  Nahor,  and  not  of  Sem,  Thara,  and 
Nachor.  If  I  read  in  the  Kew  Testament  of  Methusaleh^ 
Jephthah,  Kish,  and  Uzziah,  instead  of  Mathusala,  Jeph- 
thae,  Gis,  and  Ozias,  I  should  not  be  delayed  in  .recall- 
ing what  I  know  of  them  by  the  novelty  of  their 


156  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION. 

names.  Elijah  and  JElisha,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  Hosea, 
I  know ;  with  Mlas  and  Miseus,  Esaias,  Jeremias,  and 
Osee,  I  must  become  acquainted.  The  lessons  to  he 
learned  from  the  story  of  Joshua  and  of  Korah,  are 
often  put  out  of  mind  when  hidden  behind  the  names 
of  Jesus  (Acts  vii,  45,  and  Ileb.  iv,  8)  and  Core  (Jude 
11).  To  lose  from  our  Bibles  the  names,  Ezckias,  Jecho- 
nias,  Josias,  Urias,  Zara,  Sala,  Saruch,  Phalec,  Phares, 
Poboam,  Manasscs,  Joatham,  Zabidon,  Bachab,  if  these 
were  replaced  by  the  old  forms  that  never  detain  us  to 
look  at  them  as  mere  forms,  would  bring  no  real  loss. 
And  when  to  this  list  we  add  Shcchem,  Zidon,  and  Zioji, 
in  place  of  Si/chcm,  Sidon,  and  Sion,  the  names  that  are 
common  to  the  two  Testaments  are  (unless  something 
has  escaped  notice)  all  brought  into  correspondence. 

Of  the  far  more  extended  list  of  names  peculiar  to  one 
or  the  other  Testament,  this  brief  paper  cannot  assume 
to  speak  exhaustively.  Our  object  is  secured  if  atten- 
tion has  been  called  to  some  of  the  ends  to  be  aimed 
at  in  a  revision  of  the  proper  names  of  the  Bible,  and 
some  of  the  principles  that  should  guide  the  attempt. 


THE  USE  OF  ITALICS  m  THE  EE'GLISH  BIBLE. 

BY  THOMAS  CHASE,  LL.D., 
President  of  Haverford  College,  Pa, 

Few  need  be  told  that  the  italics  in  the  English 
Bible — with  the  notable  exception  of  a  single  passage 
—  are  used  to  show  that  the  words  so  designated  do 
not  actually  occur  in  the  original  Hebrew  or  Greek, 
and  have  been  inserted  because  thought  necessary 
either  for  the  clear  or  for  the  idiomatic  expression  of 
the  sense  in  English.  The  one  exception*  is  in  1  John 
ii,  23,  where  the  last  half  of  the  verse  was  printed  in 
a  different  letter,  to  indicate  that  it  was  omitted  by 
some  editors  and  (inferior)  manuscripts ;  its  genuine- 
ness, however,  has  since  been  established  beyond  ques- 
tion. 

Origin  of  the  Use  of  Italics. — "While  our  Authorized 
Version  has  made  probably  a  fuller  and  more  consistent 
use  of  distinctive  forms  to  indicate  supplementary 
words  than  any  other,  it  was  not  the  first  to  adopt 
such  a  device.  When  Origen  revised  the  Septuagint, 
he  collated  it  throughout  with  the  Hebrew,  and  wher- 
ever he  found  any  words  in  the  Greek  to  which  there 
was  nothing  correspondent  in  the  original,  he  marked 
them  with  an  obelos,  to  denote  their  absence  from  the 
latter.  Jerome  used  the  same  mark,  for  the  same  pur- 
pose, in  his  revision  of  the  Old  Testament  in  Latin, 
from  the  Septuagint.  Sebastian  Miinster,  who  trans- 
lated the  Old  Testament  into  Latin  in  1534-5,  distin- 
guished by  brackets  such  words,  supplementary  to 
those  of  the  original,  as  he  thought  it  necessary  to 
introduce.  Arias  Montanus,  in  his  Latin  version 
14  157 


158  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION. 

founded  on  Pagninus,  which  was  printed  in  the  Ant- 
werp Polyglot  of  1569-72,  marked  all  his  variations 
from  the  Vulgate  by  italics.  His  course  was  followed 
by  Beza,  Tremellius  and  Junius,  and  other  translators. 
The  Spanish  version  of  Cypriano  de  Valera  (1602),  and 
the  Italian  version  of  Diodati  (1607),  present  supple- 
mentary words  in  a  distinctive  chp^racter. 

Coverdale's  Latin-English  Testament  (1538)  shows 
intimations  of  distinguishing  by  brackets  such  words 
in  the  English  as  were  in  addition  to  the  Latin ; 
citing,  in  the  epistle  to  the  reader  prefixed  to  the 
work,  the  authority  of  Jerome  and  Origen.  In  the 
"Great  Bible"  (1539)  certain  words  are  found  in  a 
type  distinct  from  that  of  the  main  part  of  the  volume, 
of  which  the  Prologue  gives  the  following  explana- 
tion: "Whereas  oftentimes  ye  shall  find  a  small  letter 
in  the  text,  it  signifieth  that  so  much  as  is  in  the 
small  letter  doth  abound,  and  is  more  in  the  common 
translation  in  Latin  than  is  found  either  in  the  He- 
brew or  the  Greek ;  wliich  words  and  sentences  we 
have  added,  not  only  to  manifest  the  same  unto  you, 
but  also  to  satisfy  and  content  those  that  here  before 
time  have  missed  such  sentences  in  the  Bibles  and 
New  Testaments  before  set  forth."  The  Geneva  Bible 
was  the  first  in  English  to  use  italics,  which  it  em- 
I)loyed  on  the  same  principles  as  our  Authorized  Ver- 
sion. The  Bishops'  Bible  also  distinguished  supple- 
mentary words  by  a  different  character.  Finally,  in 
1611,  the  first  edition  of  our  Autliorized  Version  ap- 
peared, printed  in  black  letter,  with  the  supplementary 
words  in  Roman.  When,  in  subsequent  editions,  Ro- 
man type  was  substituted  for  black  letter,  tlie  addi- 
tions were  marked  by  italics,  as  they  are  printed  at 
this  day. 


THE   USE   OF   ITALICS   IN   THE   ENGLISH   BIBLE.       159 

Only  in  the  translation  of  a  book  in  which  each 
word  is  invested  with  momentous  interest,  could  men 
have  deemed  it  necessary  to  specify  by  a  characteristic 
mark,  words  which  are  actually  implied  in  the  original, 
and  omitted  in  it  simply  because  not  required  by  its 
idiom.  If  in  the  use  of  this  mark  our  translators 
have  erred,  as  I  think  they  have,  by  excess,  their  mo- 
tive deserves  all  praise.  Even  in  cases  where  the 
words  inserted  are  such  as  are  plainly  involved  in  the 
original  expression,  and  indubitably  necessary  to  set 
forth  the  same  thought  in  English,  they  were  unwill- 
ing to  allow  any  term  of  their  own  introduction  to  go 
unlabeled,  lest  haply  they  might  fail  to  give  the  reader 
due  notice  in  some  case  where  the  necessity  or  propriety 
of  the  new  word  might  possibly  be  open  to  dispute. 

Superfluous  Use  of  Italics.  —  Yet  wherever,  as  in 
the  majority  of  cases  of  italics  in  our  English  Bible, 
there  is  no  room  for  doubt  that  the  inserted  words 
express  nothing  more  and  nothing  other  than  the 
original  text  was  meant  to  convey,  it  is  superfluous 
to  point  them  out.  It  is  not  the  office  of  a  translator 
to  present  information  concerning  the  differences  of 
grammar  and  idiom  between  the  languages  of  the 
original  text  and  the  version ;  but  it  is  his  duty,  avail- 
ing himself  of  his  own  knowledge  of  these  differences, 
to  give  his  readers  the  clearest  and  directest  statement 
in  their  own  idiom  of  the  precise  thought  expressed 
in  the  original  sentence,  without  addition  and  without 
diminution. 

The  application  of  this  principle  would  go  far  to 
clear  our  English  Bible  of  those  italics  which  to  some 
degree  strike  the  eye  as  blemishes.  A  very  large  part 
of  them  occur  in  some  form  of  the  verb  "  to  be," 


160  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE    REVISION. 

especially  in  its  use  as  a  copula,  a  verb  which  the 
ancient  languages  omit  readily ;  of  similar  frequency 
is  the  insertion  by  our  translators  of  personal,  posses- 
sive, or  relative  pronouns,  indubitably  implied  in  the 
original.  Where  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  pre- 
cise form  of  the  verb  implied,  or  the  pronoun  to  be 
used,  it  would  seem  unnecessary  to  designate  the 
added  words.  !N'eed  the  reader  be  informed  of  what 
is  merely  a  difference  of  Hebrew  and  English  idiom, 
by  the  italics  in  the  sentence,  "And  God  saw  that  it 
was  good"?  There  is  no  necessity  of  italicizing  man 
or  woman^  where  the  word  is  implied  (if  we  may  not 
say  actually  expressed)  in  the  masculine  or  feminine 
terminations  of  adjectives,  adjective  pronouns,  or  par- 
ticiples; unless  there  be  a  possibility,  in  any  case,  that 
some  order  of  beino;  hio^her  or  lower  than  human  is 
referred  to,  or  that  the  distinction  of  man  and  boy, 
or  girl  and  woman,  might  essentially  affect  the  sense. 
It  is  being  over-nice  also  to  italicize  the  word  not^ 
after  a  preceding  negative,  as  in  Deut.  xxxiii,  6 ;  1 
Sam.  ii,  3 ;  Job  iii,  11 ;  xxx,  20,  25  ;  Ps.  Ixxv.  5 ;  xci, 
5,  6 ;  Isa.  xxxviii,  18.  It  is  simply  a  peculiarity  of  the 
Hebrew  idiom  not  to  require  in  such  cases^  as  does  the 
English,  the  repetition  of  the  negative. 

In  addition  to  these  whole  classes  of  words,  in- 
dividual instances  abound  in  which  italics  have  been 
needlessly  used  to  indicate  words  actually  implied,  or 
more  than  implied,  in  the  original.  Thus,  in  Luke 
xvi,  5,  and  several  similar  passages,  "  he  called  every 
one  of  his  lord's  debtors  unto  him,"  the  preposition  is 
in  composition  with  the  verb,  and  the  pronoun  is  im- 
plied by  the  middle  voice;  in  John  xx,  5,  11,  "stoop- 
ing down,  and  looking  in,"  "  she  stooj)ed  down,  and 
looked  into  the  sepulchre,"  the  Greek  verb  denotes  look- 


THE   USE   OF   ITALICS   IN   THE   ENGLISH    BIBLE.       161 

ing  as  well  as  stooping,  and  should  have  been  so  trans- 
lated also  in  Luke  xxiv,  12 ;  in  such  expressions  as 
"  the  first  day  of  the  week,"  "  the  next  day,""  "  the  day 
after,"  the  word  ''  day  "  is  indubitably  understood  in 
the  original,  and  is  the  only  word  that  can  possibly  be 
used  in  English ;  in  such  phrases  as,  "  hath  not  where 
to  lay  his  head,"  ^'' thy  sins  be  forgiven,"  "lest  they 
should  see  with  their  eyes,"  "  we  have  Abraham  to  our 
father,"  "  even  as  a  hen  gathereth  her  chickens  under 
her  wings,"  the  possessive  adjective  pronouns  are  repre- 
sented in  Greek  by  the  article,  by  a  familiar  idiom 
common  to  the  Greek  and  various  modern  lano^uasces. 
In  some  cases  words  inserted  in  italics  are  pleonastic, 
or  simply  superfluous.  Thus,  in  Matt,  iii,  15,  "  suffer 
it  to  be  so  now,"  it  alone  is  sufficient ;  in  Matt,  xvi,  14, 
"  some  say  that  thou  art^'^  say  would  be  better;  in  Luke 
iii,  5,  "and  the  rough  ways  smooth"  sounds  better 
than  "  and  the  rough  ways  shall  be  made  smooth  ;  "  in 
Luke  xii,  58,  "  in  the  way  "  (that  is,  on  the  road),  is 
enough  without  prefixing  "as  thou  art;^^  in  John  viii, 
6,  the  whole  phrase,  "  as  though  he  heard  them  not^''  is  a 
gratuitous  interpolation.  In  the  following  passages 
also  the  words  in  italics  are  unnecessarily  added  :  Acts 
vii,  42,  "  by  the  sjMce  of  forty  years ; "  x,  29,  "  came  I 
unto  yoii;^'  xxiii,  22,  '-^  see  thou  tell  no  man;"  Rom.  xi, 
4,  "  to  the  image  of  Baal ;"  1  Cor.  xiv,  3,  "  he  that  proph- 
esieth  speaketh  unto  men  to  edification  ;"  xiv,  19,  "yet 
in  the  church  I  had  rather  speak  five  words  with  my 
understanding,  that  by  my  voice  I  might  teach  others 
also,  than  ten  thousand  words  in  an  unknown  tongue;" 
xiv,  34,  "but  they  are  commanded  to  be  under  obedi- 
ence;" XV,  41,  "  for  one  star  differeth  from  another  star 
in  glory ;"  2  Cor.  iii,  3,  "-forasmuch  as  ye  are  manifestly 
declared  to  be  the  epistle  of  Christ;"  Eph.  iv,  14, 
14* 


162  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE    REVISION. 

"that  we  henceforth  be  no  more  chilflren;"  Heb.  ix, 
12,  "having  obtained  eternal  redemption  for  us;^^ 
1  Pet.  i,  22,  '^ see  that  ye  love  one  another;"  2  Pet.  i, 
21,  "a5  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost;"  1  John 
ii,  19,  "  they  would  no  doubt  have  continued  with  us  ;" 
and  Rev.  ii,  25,  "  but  that  which  ye  have  already  hold 
fast  till  I  come." 

Italics  Introduced  from  False  Interpretations. — 
There  is  another  class  of  italicized  passages,  in  which 
we  can  certainly  find  no  fault  with  the  translat9rs  for 
their  designating  the  words  which  they  have  added, 
but  modern  scholarship  discards  the  interpretation 
which  they  give  of  the  sense  of  the  original.  Thus, 
in  Ps.  xix,  3,  "  There  is  no  speech  nor  language,  where 
their  voice  is  not  heard,"  the  meaning  is  sadly  per- 
verted by  the  interpolations.  Another  notable  ex- 
ample is  in  Ileb.  x,  38,  "  ^N'ow  the  just  shall  live  by 
faith ;  but  if  any  man  draw  back,"  etc.  The  proper 
translation  is,  "  but  if  he  draw  back."  The  italicized 
words  in  John  iii,  34,  "  God  giveth  not  the  Spirit  by 
measure  unto  him.,''  improperly  limit  tlie  sense,  and 
should  be  omitted.  In  Matt,  xxv,  14,  "  For  the  hincj- 
dom  of  heaven  is  as  a  man  travelling,"  etc.,  and  in  Mark 
xiii,  34,  ''For  the  Son  of  man  is  as  a  man  taking  a  far 
journey,"  we  sliould  have  it  is  in  both  cases;  the  mean- 
ing of  "  it,"  which  is  to  be  gathered  from  the  context, 
not  being  correctly  represented  by  the  inserted  words. 
In  Matt.  XX,  23,  "  but  to  sit  on  my  right  hand,  and  on 
my  left,  is  not  mine  to  give,  but  it  shall  he  given  to  them 
for  whom  it  is  prepared  of  my  Father,"  it  is  for  them 
should  be  substituted  for  the  italics  of  our  translators. 
In  Acts  xxiii,  1,  "Men  and  brethren"  should  be  sim- 
ply "  Brethren  "  or  "  My  brethren,"  the  word  trans- 


THE    USE   OF   ITALICS   IN    THE   ENGLISH    BIBLE.        163 

lated  "  men  "  being  used  simply  as  a  courteous  prefix 
to  "  brethren."  (The  same  word  is  used  in  the  same 
manner  at  the  beginning  of  the  previous  chapter, 
wrongly  translated  "  Men,  brethren,  and  fathers,"  as 
though  three  classes  of  persons  were  addressed,  instead 
of  "  my  brethren  and  fathers.")  In  Acts  vii,  59,  "  call- 
ing upon  God^  and  saying,  Lord  Jesus,  receive  my 
spirit,"  we  should  have  ''  calling  upon  the  Lord.^^ 
Scholars  may  diiFer  on  the  translation  of  Eccles.  xii, 
13,  "  for  this  is  the  whole  duty  of  man,"  whether  to 
accept  our  authorized  version,  or  to  say  "for  this  is  all 
of  man,"  or  "  for  this  is  the  duty  of  every  man."  In  2 
Tim.  iii.  16,  many  prefer  the  interpretation  adopted 
in  some  of  the  older  English  versions,  "All  Scripture 
given  by  inspiration  of  God  is  profitable  also,"  etc. 
But  whatever  our  judgment  of  the  correctness  or  in- 
correctness of  the  view  taken  by  the  translators  of 
1611  of  the  meaning  of  any  of  these  passages,  they 
are  good  illustrations  of  the  legitimate  use  of  italics, 
as  indicating  words  not  necessarily  implied  in  the 
original ;  and  we  cannot  but  commend  the  scrupulous 
honesty  with  which  the  reader  has  been  notified  in  all 
such  cases,  and  thus  left  free  to  adopt  a  different  view 
of  his  own. 

Felicitous  Use  of  Italics. — Instances  of  the  correct 
and  felicitous  insertion  of  italicized  words  in  the  Bible 
are  very  numerous,  and  will  be  easily  recognized  by 
intelligent  readers.  Sometimes  a  slight  addition  pro- 
motes the  smoothness  and  rhythmic  flow  of  the  sen- 
tence; thus  the  word  even  is  often  inserted,  as  in  John 
XV.  26 ;  Rom.  iv,  17.  In  Ps.  cix,  4,  "For  my  love  they 
are  my  adversaries,  but  I  give  myself  unto  prayer,"  the 
extreme  conciseness  of  the  original  cannot  be  imitated 


164  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE  REVISION. 

advantageously  in  English,  and  the  introduction  of 
the  new  words  is  very  happy.  In  a  very  few  cases  it 
might  be  an  improvement  to  introduce  italics  where 
our  Authorized  Version  gives  us  Roman  letters ;  thus 
the  italicizing  of  the  word  it  in  1  Cor.  xv.  44,  would 
obviate  a  possible  misconception  of  the  meaning  of 
the  text,  which  reads  literally,  "A  natural  body  is 
sown,  a  spiritual  body  is  raised,"  or  "  There  is  sown  a 
natural  body,  there  is  raised  a  spiritual  body." 

Revision  of  the  Italics  in  our  Version. — The  italics 
in  our  Authorized  Version  have  not  been  left  without 
several  revisions.  The  inconsistencies  in  their  use  in 
the  edition  of  1611,  (or  more  properly  in  the  use  of 
the  small  Roman  type  which  served  the  same  purpose 
when  the  Bible  was  printed  in  black  letter,)  are  not 
the  least  striking  among  the  mau}^  indications  of  the 
haste  and  carelessness  with  which  that  edition  was 
brought  out.  Thus  in  Hebrews  x,  38,  the  words  "any 
man  "  were  printed  in  the  same  type  as  the  rest  of  the 
verse.  This  oversight,  with  many  others,  was  cor- 
rected in  the  carefully  revised  edition  published  at 
Cambridge,  in  1638.  Further  modifications  were 
made  by  Dr.  Scattergood  in  1683,*  and  particularly 
by  Dr.  Blayney,  in  the  much  esteemed  Oxford  edition 
of  1769,  which  he  superintended.  Dr.  Adam  Clarke, 
in  his  edition  and  commentary  in  1810,  complains  of 
gross  corruptions  in  tlie  italics  of  Dr.  Blayney's  edi- 
tions, "  particularly  where  they  have  been  chan-ged 
for    Roman    characters,   whereby   words    have    been 

*  Also  by  Dr.  Lloyd,  in  1701,  and  Dr.  Paris,  in  1762.  The  typo- 
graphical perfection  of  our  Authorized  Version,  in  conformity  to  its 
own  standards,  has  been  gradually  achieved  by  the  patient  labor  of 
many  hands. 


THE    USE   OF   ITALICS   IN    THE   ENGLISH    BIBLE.       165 

attributed  to  God  which  he  never  spake,"  and  intro- 
duces many  "  corrections."  Dr.  Scrivener,  in  his 
Cambridge  Paragraph  Bible  of  1870,  has  endeavored 
to  make  the  use  of  italics  uniform  and  consistent;  a 
work  in  which  he  found,  as  he  says  in  his  preface,  that 
"  not  a  little  remained  to  be  accomplished." 

I  have  already  intimated  my  own  opinion  that  some 
of  the  italicized  words  in  our  English  Bible  are 
gratuitous  interpolations,  and  that  a  very  consider- 
able reduction  may  be  made  in  the  remaining  number 
without  depriving  the  reader  of  any  information  con- 
cerning the  original  text  which  would  be  of  real  value 
to  him.  But  the  question  of  their  retention  or  dis- 
missal is  sometimes  a  delicate  one  ;  and  wherever  it  is 
not  easy  to  -decide  that  they  are  of  no  use,  they  should 
have  the  benefit  of  the  doubt. 


PARAGRAPHS,  CHAPTERS,  AISTD  VERSES  OF 
THE  BIBLE. 

BY   PROFESSOR   JAMES   STRONG,   S.T.D., 
Of  Drew  Theological  Seminary,  N.  J. 

The  Division  of  the  Bible  into  chapters  originated 
with  the  commentators  of  the  Middle  Ages  as  a  con- 
venience. Cardinal  Hugh,  of  St.  Cher,  adopted  it  in 
his  Concordance  to  the  Latin  Vulgate,  about  A.  D. 
1244,  and  it  was  thence  transferred  to  the  Hebrew  and 
Greek  originals.  The  division  into  verses,  in  the  Old 
Testament,  is  found  in  the  Hebrew  manuscripts  of  the 
earliest  date.  In  the  Kew  Testament  it  was  hastily 
made  by  the  printer,  Robert  Stephens,  for  the  third 
edition  of  his  Greek  Testament,  published  in  1551. 
The  chapters  and  verses  in  the  common  English  Bible 
differ  in  but  a  few  places  from  those  now  generally 
indicated  in  the  printed  editions  of  the  Hebrew  and 
Greek  texts.  They  constitute  the  paragraph  marks  or 
breaks  in  the  lines  in  King  James's  version.  In  the 
Hebrew  Bible,  however,  the  numerals  for  the  chapters 
and  verses  are  placed  in  the  margin,  and  the  text  is 
broken  into  large  sections  for  the  synagogue  lessons, 
and  smaller  ones  of  a  more  arbitrary  character.  This 
has  been  partly  imitated  in  some  editions  of  the  Eng- 
lish Bible,  by  placing  a  paragraph  mark  (H)  at  the 
head  of  verses  supposed  to  begin  a  new  subject;  but  in 
neither  case  has  the  division  been  convenient,  uniform, 
or  logical.  In  the  original  edition  (1611)  of  the  Au- 
thorized Version  this  mark  is  prefixed,  in  the  Psalms, 
to  the  special  titles  only ;  in  the  other  books  it  is 
interspersed  most  capriciously.  In  the  new  Anglo- 
American  revision  the  marks  of  chapter  and  verse 

166 


PARAGRAPHS,  CHAPTERS,  AND  VERSES   OF   THE   BIBLE.     167 

will  be  retained  for  reference;  but  the  text  will  be 
divided  into  sections,  on  some  plan  not  yet  fully  set- 
tled. It  is  earnestly  hoped  that  neither  the  Maso- 
retic  nor  any  other  conventional  mode  of  division  will 
be  implicitl}^  followed,  but  that  the  paragraphs  will 
correctly  indicate  the  changes  of  topics.  The  parallelism 
in  the  poetical  books  will  be  shown  by  printing  in 
verse-form,  which  will  be  an  immense  gain  in  the  clear- 
ness and  force  of  meaning.  For  example,  the  earliest 
specimen  of  poetry  extant  (Gen.  iv,  23,  24)  illustrates 
itself  if  arranged  in  some  such  way  as  this : 

"And  Lamech  said  unto  his  wives, 

Adah  and  Zillah,  Hear  mj  voice ; 

Ye  wives  of  Lamech,  Hearken  unto  my  speech: 
For  I  have  slain  a  man  to  my  wounding, 
And  a  young  man  to  my  hurt. 

If  Cain  shall  be  avenged  sevenfold. 
Truly  Lamech  seventy  and  sevenfold." 

Chapter  and  Verse  Divisions.  —  The  present  di- 
vision into  chapters  and  verses  is  manifestly  in- 
judicious, and  some  of  the  advantages  of  a  just  para- 
graph system  are  the  following,  which  we  will  illus- 
trate by  a  few  examples : 

1.  The  seyise  is  greatly  injured  hy  the  one  method.,  and,  im- 
proved by  the  other.  —  Oftentimes  the  closest  connection 
of  thought  is  broken  up  by  the  present  division,  which 
is  purely  accidental ;  and,  vice  versa,  a  connection  is 
falsely  suggested  where  there  is  really  a  break  in  the 
subject.  Thus,  at  the  very  outset,  the  account  of  the 
general  creation,  in  Gen.  i,  properly  includes  verses  1-3 
of  Chapter  ii,  as  every  indication  in  the  text  shows ; 
while  verse  4  begins  the  narrative  of  man's  trial  in 
Eden.  So,  in  the  last  chapter  of  Revelation,  verses  1-5 
belong  to  the  description  of  the  heavenly  city  prcccd- 


168  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE    REVISION. 

ing,  and  the  remaining  verses  contain  an  entirely  dis- 
tinct topic.  Similar  instances  are  innumerable,  as  any 
judiciously  arranged  "Paragraph  Bible"  will  show. 
In  like  manner,  the  verses  frequently  interrupt  a 
sentence,  sometimes  very  strangely,  as  in  Ps.  xcviii,  8, 
9,  "  Let  the  hills  be  joyful  together  —  before  the  Lord ;" 
and  so  Ps.  xcvi,  12,  13.  The  mere  fact  of  beginning  a 
new  verse  with  a  capital  letter,  after  a  comma,  or  some 
other  of  the  lesser  punctuation  marks,  is  calculated  to 
mislead  the  reader,  and  induce  a  defective  and  errone- 
ous habit  of  quoting  Scripture.  Probably  this  has  been 
a  fruitful  cause  of  the  prevalent  practice  of  perverting 
proof-texts,  by  neglecting  the  context.  On  the  con- 
trary, how  much  more  beautiful  would  the  description 
of  charity,  in  1  Cor.  xiii,  become  if  read  in  immediate 
connection,  as  exemplifying  the  "  more  excellent  way" 
of  the  last  verse  of  the  preceding  chapter,  and  as  enforc- 
ing the  exhortation  to  "  follow  after  charity,"  in  the 
first  verse  of  the  following  chapter.  Proper  paragraph- 
ing is  a  sort  of  analysis  of  a  book  or  chapter,  so  as  to 
be  evident  at  a  glance.  How  would  a  modern  history,, 
or  poem,  or  e])istle  look,  if  the  printer  should  chop  it 
up  in  the  fashion  of  our  common  Bibles?  It  greatly 
impairs  the  significance  and  dignity  of  the  sacred 
volume. 

2.  The  j^resent  arrcmgement  is  a  loss  in  every  respect. — 
For  convenience  of  consultation  the  verse  and  chapter 
numbers  are  certainly  preferable  in  the  margin,  where 
the  eye  can  rapidly  run  down  them  in  single  file. 
There  is  surely  no  economy  of  space  in  losing  part  of 
a  line  at  the  end  of  nearly  every  verse.  There  is  little 
beauty  in  the  ragged-looking  page  that  these  frequent 
and  irregular  blanks  make.  The  double  columns  which 
this  method  of  typography  almost  necessitates  shorten 


PARAGRAPHS,  CHAPTERS,  AND  VERSES   OF   THE  BIBLE.     169 

the  measure  and  destroy  uniformity  of  spacing.  There 
is  small  comfort  in  reading  at  one  time  a  chapter,  some- 
times unduly  long,  sometimes  very  short,  without  be- 
ing sure  that  you  have  the  whole  subject  together. 
Finally,  on  the  ordinary  plan,  it  is  impossible  to  dis- 
tinguish the  poetical  from  the  prose  portions  of  the 
Bible.  All  these  things  considered,  it  is  a  wonder 
that  intelligent  readers  will  tolerate  the  chapter-and^ 
verse  mode  of  paragraphing.  Il^othing  but  slavery  to 
custom  could  reconcile  us  to  it  in  these  days  of  literary 
and  mechanical  improvement. 
15       - 


eeyisio:n"  of  the  scriptuees. 

BY    THE   RIGHT   REV.  ALFRED   LEE. 

*'  He  that  hath  my  word,  let  him  speak  my  word  faithfully."  —  Jer. 

xxiii,  28. 

Objections  to  a  Revision. — That  the  proposal  to  set 
forth  a  revision  of  the  English  Bible  should  awaken 
opposition  and  distrust,  will  surprise  no  one  who  has 
given  the  least  reflection  to  the  subject,  or  who  is  con- 
versant with  the  history  of  tlie  sacred  text.  In  pro- 
portion to  the  value  set  upon  this  version  will  be  the 
anxiety  and  alarm  at  the  suggestion  of  change.  To  the 
great  majority  of  readers  the  Bible  to  which  they  have 
been  always  accustomed  is  the  word  of  God,  verbatim 
et  literatim.  Accepting  all  Scripture  as  given  by  inspira- 
tion of  God,  they  have  been  wont  to  regard  every  sylhi- 
ble  with  equal  veneration.  The  words  and  phrases,  as- 
sociated in  memory  with  the  happiest  and  most  solemn 
liours  of  their  lives,  are  redolent  of  that  heaven  from 
which  they  are  su}>[)0sed  to  come,  and  to  part  with  the 
smallest  fragment  is  a  most  painful  thought.  The  de- 
vout reader  feels  as  if  he  were  to  be  robbed  of  that 
which  is  more  ]>recious  than  gold. 

Very  many,  who  value  their  Bible  above  all  i)rice, 
scarcely  ever  remember  that  what  they  have  before 
their  e^^es  is  not  the  very  utterance  of  men  moved  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  but  a  translation  from  other  languages, 
and  so  far,  a  human  work.  As  a  human  work  it  is 
liable  to  tlie  error  and  imperfection  incident  to  what- 
ever is  human.  So  also,  as  committed  to  writing,  it 
lias    (luring    many  ages  been   cx[)()sl'<1   to  suffer    from 

170 


REVISION   OF    THE    SCRIPTURES.  171 

errors  of  transcribers,  and  even  endeavors  well  meant, 
however  mistaken,  to  correct  and  improve  the  original. 
The  impression  has  been  cherished  and  common  that 
the  Holy  One  who  gave  men  his  word  has  interposed, 
by  perpetual  miracle,  to  guard  it  from  alteration  or 
corruption.  So  that  infallibility  has  been  virtually 
attributed  not  only  to  the  prophets,  apostles  and  evan- 
gelists who  wrote  the  different  books,  but  to  scribes, 
copyists  and  translators,  through  whom  they  have  been 
handed  down  to  us. 

!N"ow  while  we  gratefully  acknowledge  the  provi- 
dence of  Almighty  God,  in  preserving  and  watching 
over  these  communications  of  his  will,  so  that  we  have 
a  sure  and  sufficient  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  it  is 
undeniable  that  no  such  miracle  has  been  wrought. 
Scribes  and  translators  have  not  been  exempt  from 
human  infirmities.  Errors  have  crept  into  the  text, 
sometimes  from  design,  oftener  from  accident. 

Our  English  Bible,  commonly  known  as  the  Author- 
ized Version,  with  all  its  claims  upon  our  reverence  and 
confidence,  does  not  contain  the  lively  oracles  as  origi- 
nally spoken  or  recorded.  It  is  God's  word  only  so  far 
as  the  primal  text  has  been  exactly  preserved  and  faith- 
fully rendered  into  our  tongue.  To  admit  this  is  to  cast 
no  reflection  upon  the  work  itself,  or  upon  those  who 
were  engaged  in  its  preparation.  All  honor  to  the  noble 
band  of  Christian  scholars  who,  from  Wickliffe  down 
to  the  revisers  appointed  by  King  James,  labored  to 
present  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  the  English  language. 
Many  of  them  died  for  their  loyalty  and  devotion  to 
the  truth  which  they  sought  to  diftuse.  All  of  them 
were  men  eminent  for  learning,  as  for  purity  and  holi- 
ness of  life.  They  left  behind  them  a  monument  en- 
during and  admirable.     The  very  comparison  of  the 


172  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION. 

dates  1611  and  1870  is  an  emphatic  witness  to  the  high 
qualifications  and  conscientious  fidelity  of  those  last 
named.  For  more  than  two  centuries  and  a  half  their 
revision  has  held  its  place,  gathering  around  it  the 
afiections  of  the  great  mass  of  those  who  speak  the 
English  tongue,  and  the  homage  and  admiration  of  the 
learned.  Xo  eulotiristic  lano-uao-e  has  seemed  to  over- 
pass  its  merits.  And  those  who  promote  and  encour- 
age the  revision  now  in  progress,  as  well  as  those 
actually  participating  in  the  work,  yield  to  none  in 
sincere  and  enlightened  appreciation  of  the  excellences 
of  the  Authorized  Version. 

Advances  in  Textual  Criticism.  —  But  the  world 
has  not  been  standing  still  since  1611,  and  among 
other  advances,  prodigious  strides  have  been  made  in 
branches  of  knowledge  bearing  upon  the  right  under- 
standing of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Textual  criticism 
lias  so  improved  as  to  be  almost  ranked  as  a  new 
science.  Men  of  varied  acquirements,  and  of  the 
richest  intellectual  gifts,  have  given  years  to  the  pa- 
tient investigation  of  the  subject.  Diligent  explora- 
tion has  brought  to  light  ancient  manuscripts  of  in- 
estimable worth.  Every  word  and  letter  has  been 
examined  with  scrupulous  and  painstaking  care.  Of 
the  extent  and  thoroughness  pf  these  researches  and 
studies,  one  who  has  not  examined  the  subject  can 
have  little  conception.  And  while  the  material  have 
thus  been  collected  from  all  sources,  the  knowledge  of 
the  languages  in  which  the  Scriptures  were  written 
has  been  greatly  enlarged  and  perfected.  This  is  spe- 
cially true  of  Greek  scholarship.  Apart  from  striking 
and  obvious  corrections,  shades  of  meaning  and  felici- 
ties of  expression  arc  now  brought  to  view,  enhancing 


REVISION    OF    THE    SCRIPTURES.  178 

greatly  the  clearness  and  beauty  of  the  divinely-given 
records. 

"While  improved  scholarship  has  thus  been  enlarg- 
ing acquaintance  with  the  ancient  tongues,  our  own 
English  has  not  been  fixed  and  immovable.  'No  doubt 
the  generally  read  version  of  the  Scriptures  has  done 
much  to  prevent  innovation,  but  a  living,  growing 
tongue  experiences  constant  variation,  and  casts  off 
from  age  to  age  once  familiar  words.  To  resist  obsti- 
nately all  recognition  of  these  changes  in  a  book  in- 
tended to  be  in  every  hand,  is  to  render  certain  portions 
obscure  or  unintelligible. 

Eeasons  for  a  Revision-.  —  These  are  some  of  the 
reasons  which  have  impressed  upon  Biblical  scholars 
within  the  last  generation  the  importance  of  a  re- 
vision of  the  English  Bible  in  common  use.  With 
all  its  confessed  merits,  the  defects  and  errors  were 
too  glaring  to  be  denied  or  overlooked.  The  con- 
science of  the  Christian  church  became  more  and 
more  aroused.  The  duty  of  placing  before  the  people 
a  pure  and  unexceptionable  text  pressed  more  heav- 
ily. The  assaults  of  gainsayers  and  enemies  could 
not  be  successfully  resisted.  It  was  a  painful  thing 
for  the  teacher  to  be  laboring  to  explain  what,  after 
all,  was  no  part  of  the  inspired  volume,  and  for  the 
preacher  to  find  that  the  text  upon  which  he  had  been 
discoursing  was  erroneously  rendered.  iN'either  was 
it  a  pleasant  task  to  avoid  misunderstandings,  by  en- 
cumbering a  discourse  with  learned  criticisms.  Then 
the  fact  which  could  not  be  denied  of  the  existence 
of  thousands  of  various  readings  was  magnified  by 
assailants  of  the  faith,  and  occasioned  distrust  and 
alarm  in  the  heart  of  many  an  unlearned  believer. 
15* 


174  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE    REVISION. 

The  battle  with  infidelity  was  fought  at  a  disad- 
vantage, while  it  was  felt  that  there  were  useless 
weapons  in  the  armory,  and  weak  points  in  the  walls 
of  the  citadel. 

The  conviction,  therefore,  has  been  of  late  j^ears  a 
growing  one  that  a  revision  must  come,  and  come  ere 
very  long.  That  it  would  be  encountered  by  alarm 
and  hostility  was  inevitable.  This  had  been  the  fate 
of  every  attempt  of  this  kind  from  the  beginning. 
Jerome's  great  work,  afterwards  elevated  by  the 
Church  of  Rome  to  the  rank  of  an  infallible  standard, 
awoke  a  furious  tempest  of  opposition  at  the  outset. 
But  the  necessity  was  now  admitted  by  men  not  less 
known  for  their  conservative  opinions  than  for  their 
scholarship. 

Archbishop  Trench  on  Revision. — Among  the  early 
prominent  works  indicating  this  conviction  was  that 
of  Dr.  Trench,  now  Archbishop  of  Dublin,  in  1858,  in 
which  he  says,  "  It  is  clear  that  the  question,  Are  we, 
or  are  we  not  to  have  a  new  translation  of  the  Scrip- 
ture? or,  rather,  since  few  would  propose  this  who 
do  not  wish  to  lift  anchor,  and  loosen  from  its  moor- 
ings the  whole  religious  life  of  the  English  people, 
shall  we,  or  shall  we  not  have  a  new  revision  of  the 
Authorized  Version  ?  is  one  which  is  presenting  itself 
more  and  niore  familiarly  to  the  minds  of  men." 
"Of  the  arguments  against  a  revision  none  will  deny 
the  weight.  Indeed,  there  are  times  when  the  whole 
matter  presents  itself  as  so  full  of  difficulty  and 
doubtful  hazard,  that  one  could  be  well  content  to 
resign  all  gains  that  woulcl  accrue  from  this  revision, 
and  only  ask  that  things  might  remain  as  they  are ; 
but  this,  I  am  persutided,  is  impossible.     However  we 


REVISION    OF    THE    SCRIPTURES.  175 

may  be  disposed  to  let  the  question  alone,  it  will  not 
let  us  alone.  It  has  been  too  effectually  stirred,  ever 
again  to  go  to  sleep ;  and  the  difficulties  with  which 
it  is  surrounded,  be  they  few  or  many,  will  have  at  no 
distant  day  to  be  encountered.  The  time  will  come 
when  the  perils  of  remaining  where  we  are  will  be  so 
manifestly  greater  than  the  perils  of  action,  that  action 
will  become  inevitable.  There  will  be  danger  in  both 
courses,  for  that  saying  of  the  Latin  moralist  is  a  pro- 
foundly true  one,  '•Nunqitam  pericidum  sine  periculo  vin- 
citur; '  but  the  lesser  danger  will  have  to  be  chosen." 

Difficulties  of  Eevision. — But  the  importance  and 
necessity  of  the  work  being  admitted,  the  manner  of 
proceeding  was  beset  with  great  and  obvious  difficulties. 
The  so-called  Authorized  Version  was  the  common  prop- 
erty and  treasure  of  all  who  speak  the  English  tongue. 
Its  merits  had  commended  it  to  almost  universal  ac- 
ceptance. Although  issuing  from  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, it  was  no  less  prized  by  the  different  bodies  of 
non-conformists  in  that  country,  and  by  various  Chris- 
tian communions  in  our  own  land.  It  was  a  bond  of 
union  among  those  who  differed  materially  from  each 
other ;  a  common  standard  of  appeal.  The  wide  dif- 
fusion of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  had  carried  it  over  the 
world ;  and  wherever  one  to  whom  the  English  lan- 
guage was  vernacular  found  himself,  he  heard  in  public 
worship  the  same  hallowed  and  venerated  phrases  and 
expressions.  Some  of  the  most  eager  advocates  for 
revision  trembled  at  the  thought  of  losing  so  blessed 
a  testimony  to  the  unity  of  our  faith,  and  felt  that 
it  would  be  a  deplorable  change  to  substitute  several 
versions  for  the  one  that  had  obtained  such  supremacy 
and  acceptance.     The  opinion  was  therefore  strongly 


176  ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE   REVISION. 

expressed  by  those  who  discussed  the  subject,  that,  in 
securino;  a  more  accurate  book,  the  greatest  care  should 
be  taken  not  to  forfeit  this  happy  unanimity. 

This  obstacle  seemed  at  once  to  oppose  the  undertak- 
ing to  supply  this  want  by  any  one  church.  Jealousy 
and  distrust  would  be  inevitably  awakened.  Th^  au- 
thority thus  gained  within  the  borders  of  the  commun- 
ion assuming  this  work  would  be  met  by  prejudices 
awakened  in  other  bodies.  To  bring  delegates  from 
all  these  communions  together  for  consultation  seemed 
an  impracticable  matter.  If  any  Church  should  lead 
in  the  enterprise,  the  old  historic  Church  which  had 
produced  the  Authorized  Version  would  seem  evidently 
to  be  the  one  to  take  the  initiative  ;  and  yet  its  ablest 
minds  felt  that  the  risk  was  very  serious  of  failing  to 
obtain  general  recognition,  even  if  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land could  authoritatively  sanction  and  adopt  a  revised 
version.  Archbishop  Trench  remarks  in  the  work 
above  referred  to,  "With  the  exception  of  the  Roman 
Catholics,  the  Authorized  Version  is  common  ground 
for  all  in  England  who  call  themselves  Christians  ;  is 
alike  the  heritage  of  all.  But,  even  if  English  Dis- 
senters acknowledge  the  necessity  of  a  revision,  which 
I  conclude  from  many  indications  they  do,  it  is  idle 
to  expect  tliey  would  accept  such  at  our  hands.  Two 
things  then  might  happen :  either  they  would  adhere 
to  the  old  version,  which  is  not,  indeed,  very  probable; 
or  they  would  carry  out  a  revision  —  it  might  be  two 
or  three  —  of  their  own.  In  either  case  the  ground  of 
a  common  Scripture,  of  an  English  Bil)le  which  they 
and  we  hold  equally  sacred,  would  be  taken  from  us; 
the  separation  and  division  which  are  now  the  sorrow, 
and  T)er}»lexity,  and  shame  of  England,  would  become 
more  marked,  more  deeply  fixed  than  ever." 


REVISION   OF   THE   SCRIPTURES.  177 

It  is  evident  that  tlie  difficulty  which  seemed  so  for- 
midable to  Dr.  Trench  would  not  be  lighter  in  case  of 
any  other  Christian  body  undertaking  the  work.  This 
would  be,  in  all  jjrobability,  merely  to  provide  a  ver- 
sion of  their  own,  and  thus  to  cut  themselves  off,  so 
far  as  this  bond  is  concerned,  from  sympathy  with 
fellow-believers. 

Another  difficulty  suggests  itself,  in  the  way  of  pro- 
ceeding by  Church  authority,  and  that  is  the  danger 
of  giving  previous  sanction  to  a  work  which,  after  all, 
might  not  prove  acceptable.  The  safer  way  is  evi- 
dently for  a  proposed  version  to  be  for  a  time  before 
the  public,  subject  to  free  examination,  prior  to  its 
formal  adoption. 

And  this  seems  to  have  been  the  history  of  the 
present  English  Bible.  The  title  of  "Authoriz3d 
Version"  conveys  a  not  altogether  correct  impression. 
The  work  was  undertaken  by  direction  of  the  king, 
without  any  synodal  action  or  consent,  and  when 
published  seems  to  have  been  left  to  win  its  own  way 
to  acceptance  and  use.  "  The  clause  on  the  title-page 
'appointed  to  be  read  in  churches,'  has,  so  far  as  is 
known,  no  authority,  no  edict  of  Convocation,  no  Act 
of  Parliament,  no  decision  of  the  Privy  Council,  no 
royal  proclamation "  (Eadie,  Vol.  II.,  p.  204).  For 
some  time  after  it  was  issued  the  Bishops'  and  the 
Geneva  Bible  were  republished,  extensively  circulated, 
and  the  former  held  its  old  place  in  many  churches. 
So  that  there  is  very  little  in  the  history  of  our  present 
Bible  to  support  the  claim  that  a  revision  can  only  be 
undertaken  and  consummated  by  church  authority. 

At  the  same  time  it  is  evident  that  more  is  needed 
than  individual  enterprise  or  a  self-constituted  board 
of  revisers.     Men  of  high  attainments  and  excellent 


178  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION. 

judgment  have  made  valuable  contributions  to  a  more 
faithful  and  exact  presentation  of  the  Divine  Word, 
and  eminent  scholars  have  united  to  set  forth  different 
portions,  but  it  is  evident  that  none  of  these  can  ob- 
tain universal  assent.  The  work  that  is  eventually  to 
take  the  place  of  the  Bible  of  1611  must  not  only  en- 
gage the  patient  study  of  well-qualified  minds,  but  it 
must  come  before  the  public  with  higher  claims  to  at- 
tention than  a  self-constituted  committee  can  command. 

First  Steps  towards  the  Present  Revision. — These 
perplexities  seem  to  have  been  happily  solved  in  the 
present  movement  for  revising  the  Authorized  Ver- 
sion. It  originated  in  the  Convocation  of  the  Province 
of  Canterbury,  an  ecclesiastical  body  containing  repre- 
sentatives from  five-sixths  of  the  Church  of  England. 
This  assemblage  of  men  of  the  highest  position  and 
most  eminent  character  and  scholarship  in  the  Church 
which  gave  the  present  time-honored  book,  conferred 
the  desirable  sanction  upon  the  revising  body,  without 
committing  the  church  absolutely  to  their  conclusions. 
It  is  no  spontaneous,  merely  voluntary  undertaking, 
in  which  the  present  revisers  are  combined,  but  one 
originating  in  an  ecclesiastical  Council  of  the  greatest 
weight  and  respectability.  May  6,  1870,  resohitions 
were  unanimously  adopted  by  the  upper  house  of  the 
Convocation  of  Canterbury,  and  concurred  in  by  a 
large  majority  of  the  lower  house,  to  the  following 
effect : 

"  1.  That  it  is  desirable  that  a  revision  of  the  Au- 
thorized Version  of  tlie  Holy  Scriptures  l^e  undertaken. 

"  2.  That  the  revision  be  so  conducted  as  to  com- 
prise both  marginal  renderings,  and  such  emendations 
as  it  may  be  found  necessary  to  insert  in  tlie  text. 


REVISION   OF   THE   SCRIPTURES.  179 

"  3.  That  in  the  above  resolutions  we  do  not  con- 
template any  new  translation  of  the  Bible,  or  any 
alteration  of  the  language,  except  where,  in  the  judg- 
ment of  the  most  competent  scholars,  such  change  is 
necessary. 

"  4.  That  in  such  necessary  changes,  the  style  of  the 
language  employed  in  the  existing  version  be  closely 
followed. 

"5.  That  it  is  desirable  that  Convocation  should 
nominate  a  body  of  its  own  members  to  undertake  the 
work  of  revision,  who  shall  be  at  liberty  to  invite  the 
co-operation  of  any  eminent  for  scholarship,  to  what- 
ever nation  or  religious  body  they  may  belong." 

The  language  of  clause  5  indicates  the  liberal  and 
comprehensive  spirit  of  the  action  that  was  adopted. 
The  great  work  was  not  to  be  confined  to  members  of 
the  Anglican  Church,  but  to  be  shared  by  representa- 
tives of  the  different  bodies  who  have  equal  interest 
in  the  result.  This  principle  was  advocated  strongly 
by  Archbishop  Trench,  in  the  treatise  above  men- 
tioned, and  by  Bishop  Ellicott,  in  the  introduction  to 
his  work  on  the  Eevision  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
was  fully  admitted  by  the  Convocation. 

American  Co-operation.  —  In  accordance  with  this 
action,  the  committee  appointed,  consisting  of  eight 
members  of  each  house  of  Convocation,  proceeded  to 
invite  eminent  scholars  and  divines,  as  well  from 
different  bodies  of  non-conformists  as  from  the  Church 
of  England,  to  join  in  this  work.  Among  these  are 
found  names  the  most  distinguished  for  biblical  and 
classical  scholarship.  The  insertion  of  the  significant 
word  "  nation "  in  the  action  above  recited,  showed 
the  desire  for  participation   in  the   proposed  work 


1 
180  ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION. 

beyond  the  bounds  of  the  British  Empire,  as  well  as 
beyond  the  limits  of  the  established  Cliurch. 

Measures  were  accordingly  taken  to  obtain  the  co- 
operation of  American  scholars,  in  the  hope  of  making 
the  new  version,  like  the  old  one,  a  bond  of  union  be- 
tween two  great  nations  speaking  the  same  language. 
Twenty-five  persons,  representing  the  principal  Prot- 
estant communions  in  the  United  States,  were  invited 
to  act  in  co-operation  with  the  English  revisers,  and 
have  been  holding  regular  monthly  sessions  for  the  last 
seven  years.  There  has  been  constant  and  confidential 
interchange  of  results  between  the  committees  on  each 
side  of  the  Atlantic,  and  the  joint  work  has  been  going 
forward  in  a  harmonious  and  satisfactory  manner. 

The  final  acceptance  of  the  result  is  to  be  hereafter 
shown.  The  revisers  do  not  ask  or  expect  an  imme- 
diate and  inconsiderate  approval.  They  will  submit 
their  conclusions  to  the  calm  and  mature  examination 
of  the  great  Christian  public,  to  be  judged  upon  their 
own  merits.  It  is  confidently  suggested  to  candid  men 
who  love  God's  word,  and  desire  it  to  be  presented  in 
the  greatest  attainable  purity,  that  probably  no  method 
of  procedure  could  have  been  devised  for  securing  that 
object,  less  open  to  objection,  and  combining  greater 
advantage  and  promise,  than  that  which  has  been 
adopted. 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


Abbot,  Ezra,  12,  86. 

Acts,  MSS.  of,  95,  96. 

Adams,  W.,  13. 

Addison  on  A.  V.,  37. 

uEschylus,  MSS.  of,  95. 

Aiken,  C.  A.,  11,  151. 

Alexander,  W.  L.,  7. 

Alexandrian  MS.,  74,  96. 

Alford,  Dean,  10. 

American  language,  117. 

American  Revision  Committee,  11, 14, 
15,  179. 

Ancient  translations  :  see  Versions. 

Anderson,  T.  D.,  13. 

Anglo-American  Bible  Revision,  10, 
14. 

Angus,  J,,  9. 

Antiquities  of  the  Holy  Land,  62. 

Antwerp  Polyglot,  74,  158. 

Aorist,  errors  in  the  use  of  the,  106, 
107,  126,  128. 

Aquila,  version  of,  44,  74. 

Arabic  language,  61,  76. 

MSS.,  96. 

versions,  62,  75,  96. 

Archaisms,  or  Obsolete  and  Un- 
usual Words  or  Phrases  in  the 
English  Bible,  144. 

Armenian  MSS.,  96. 

Article,  definite,  68,  101. 

Assyria,  antiquities  in,  62. 

Authorized  Version : 

a  classic,  37-42. 

accuracy  of,  56. 

associations  of,  41. 

authority  of,  48. 

16 


Authorized  Version,  authors  of,  31,  39, 
99. 

beauties  of,  34,  41. 

character  of,  39. 

conservative  influence  of,  40. 

critical  apparatus  of,46,73-79,172. 

defects  of,  47,  62. 

errors  of,  64,  80-85,  99-112,  129- 

144. 

estimation  of,  16,  34,  113, 172. 

eulogies  on,  16,  34,  37, 39, 40, 113, 

172. 

excellencies  of,  171. 

Faber  on,  42. 

Greek  text  of,  17,93,113,118-125. 

helps  for  translating,  72-79. 

history   of,  14,  15,  20,  30-37,  39, 

44,  60,  61,  70,  72-79,  99,  177. 

inaccuracies  of,  68,  80-85, 99-112. 

infelicities  of.  111,  137. 

instructions  regarding,  31. 

italics  in,  157-165. 

obscurities  of,  138. 

obsolete  words  in,  145. 

preface  of,  50. 

proper  names  of,  151-156. 

standard  of  English,  35,  37,  44. 

style  of,  35,  38,  39,  45,  47,  52, 119, 

140,  171. 

translators  of,  31,  39. 

verbal  differences  and  agree- 
ments in,  133-143. 

Wyclifife  and,  30. 

Babylonia,  schools  in,  54. 
Bacon,  style  of,  38. 

181 


182 


ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION. 


Barnes,  A.  S.,  13. 

Bath  and  Wells,  Bishop  of,  7. 

Bengel,  labors  of,  97. 

Bensly,  Robert  L.,  7. 

Beza,  version  of,  28,  93,  94,  158. 

Bible,  a  classic,  37-42. 

• Bishops',  29,  34,  39,  40, 158. 

Chapters  of,  17,  166. 

Coverdale's,  25, 26, 28, 32, 39, 158. 

Cranmer's,  29,  32,  39. 

divisions  of,  166-169. 

Great,  26,  158. 

Matthew's,  26,  28,  32,  39. 

Paragraphs  of,  166. 

Taverner's,  27. 

-  Translations  of:  see  Versions. 

-  Verses  of,  28,  166. 

-  Versions  of:  see  Versions. 

-  Whitchurch's,  32. 

Biblical  science,  advances  in,  49,  60, 

99,  172. 
Biblical  style,  45. 
Bickersteth,  Dean,  9. 
Birrell,  John,  7. 
Bishop,  N.,  13. 

Bishops'  Bible,  29,  34,  39,  40,  158. 
Blakesley,  Dean,  9. 
Bomberg,  Bible  of,  53. 
Bottcher,  Hebrew  Grammar  of,  76. 
Britain,  Christianity  in,  22. 
British  Museum,  74. 
Brown,  David,  9. 
Brown,  J.  M.,  13. 
Browne,  Bishop  E.  H.,  7. 
Burr,  J.  K.,  12. 
Buxtorf,  John,  Hebrew  works  of,  61, 

62,  75. 
Buxtorf,  John,  Jr.,  labors  of,  61. 

Cambridge  MS.,  95. 

University  Press,  19. 

Campbell,  George,  version  of,  41. 
Canterbury,  Canon  of,  7. 

convocation  of,  14, 178. 

• Dean  of,  7. 

revision,  178. 


Capellus,  labors  of,  67. 
Castellus,  labors  of,  61,  76. 
Catholic  Epistles,  95. 
Cauldwell,  W.  A.,  13. 
Chaldee  paraphrases,  75. 

targums,  62. 

versions,  67,  75. 

Chambers,  Talbot  W.,  11,  37. 
Chance,  Frank,  7. 
Change,  given  to,  81. 
Chapters  of  the  Bible,  17,  166. 

headings  of,  17. 

Chase,  Thomas,  12,  157. 

Chayim,  Jacob  ben,  54. 

Chenery,  Thomas,  7. 

Cheyno,  T.  K.,  7. 

Christianity  in  Britain,  22. 

Church  of  Rome  and  the  Scriptures, 

29, 174. 
Classical  authors,  text  of,  86,  95. 
Clermont  MS.,  93. 
Codex  Amiatinus,  75. 
Codex  Bezoe,  95 
Coins  of  the  Bible,  118. 
Coleridge  on  A.  V.,  37. 
Coniplutcnsian  Polyglot,  74,  93,  94. 
Conant,  T.  J.,  labors  of,  11,  82. 
Conservatism  in  Respect  to  Changes 

IN  THE  English  and  the  Greek 

Text,  113. 
Convocation  of  Canterbury,  14. 
Corrk,  Canon,  10. 
Coptic  MS.,  96. 
Copyists,  errors  of,  97. 

rules  of,  65. 

Corn-fields,  117. 

Coverdalo,  version  of,  25,  26,  28,  32, 

39,  168. 
Cranmer's  Bible,  29,  32,  39. 
Critical  Apj)aratus  for  A.  A.  Version,, 

46,  94-97. 
Criticism,  advances  in,  49,  99,  172. 

of  Old  Testament,  64. 

Crooks,  G.  R.,  12. 
Crosby,  Howard,  12,  144. 
Curetonian  MS.,  96. 


GENERAL   INDEX. 


183 


Current  Version  of  the  Scriptures 
AS  Compared  with  our  Present 
Needs,  48. 

Cursive  MSS.,  96. 

Davidson,  A.  B.,  7. 
Davidson,  D.  S.,  56.      • 
Davies,  Professor,  8. 
Day,  George  E.,  11,  72. 
De  Dieu,  labors  of,  76. 
De  Rossi,  labors  of,  57,  62. 
De  Witt,  J.,  11. 
Devil,  name  of,  142. 
Diodati,  version  of,  77,  158. 
Divisions  of  the  Bible,  166-169. 
Dodge,  William  E.,  13. 
DouglaSj  George,  7. 
Driver,  S.  R.,  7. 
Dutch  versions,  25,  37. 
Duty  of  Revisionists,  70. 
D wight,  Timothy,  12,  113. 
Dyer,  H.,  13. 

Eadie,  John,  10. 

Egypt,  antiquities  of,  62. 

MSS.  of,  96. 

river  of,  63. 

Ellicott,  Bishop,  9. 

Elliot,  J.,  13. 

Elliott,  C.  J.,  7. 

Elizabeth,  style  of  her  time,  38. 

English  Bible  as  a  Classic,  37. 

English  language  and  the  A.  V.,  34, 

36,  38,  115,  127,  143,  144-150,  160, 

171. 
English  Revision  Company,  7,  14, 15. 
Ephraem  MS.,  95. 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  110,  139. 
Erasmus,  New  Testament  of,  93. 
Errors  in  geography,  62,  79. 

Greek  article,  101. 

Hebrew  Grammar,  67. 

prepositions  and  particles,  103. 

proper  names,  64. 

verbs,  105. 

Ethiopic  language,  61. 


Ethiopia  version,  75. 

Ewald,  Hebrew  Grammar  of,  76. 

labors  of,  61. 

Faber,  F.  W.,  on  A.  V.,  42. 
Fairbairn,  P.,  8. 
Fancher,  E.  L.,  13. 
Field,  Frederick,  8. 
Frankel,  labors  of,  57. 
French  versions,  77. 
Frensdorf,  labors  of,  57. 
Fuerst,  labors  of,  61,  83. 

Geden,  J,  D.,  8. 

Geneva  Bible,  28,  29,  30,  32,  39, 41, 93. 
Geography  of  the  Bible,  62,  79. 
German  language,  127. 

versions,  25,  77. 

Gesenius,  Hebrew  Grammar  of,  76. 
-- —  labors  of,  61,  83. 
Ginsburg,  C.  D.,  8,  57. 
Gospels,  MSS.  of,  95,  96. 
Gotch,  F.  W.,  8. 
Gothic  MSS.,  96. 
Grain-fields,  117. 
Great  Bible,  26,  158. 
Greek  article,  errors  in,  101. 

authors,  86,  93,  94,  95,  127. 

criticism,  16. 

imperatives,  131. 

imperfect,  129. 

language,  25,  35,  47,  50,  127, 152, 

154,  157,  172. 
manuscripts,  17,  45,  49,  54,  86, 

93-98. 

' middle  voice,  132. 

non-indicative,  131. 

perfect,  130. 

tenses,  127. 

Testaments,  28,  93,  94. 

text  of  A.  A.  v.,  46,  94,  118. 

text  of  A.  v.,  45,  80,  93. 

verb,  126. 

versions,  41, 

GuEKK  Verb  in  the  New  Testament, 
126-132. 


184 


ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION. 


Green,  ^Y.  Henry,  11,  60. 

Hebrew  Grammar  of,  76. 

Griesbach,  labors  of,  97,  98. 

Hackctt,  Horatio  B.,  12. 

Hadley,  James,  12. 

Hallam  on  the  A.  V.,  37. 

Hare,  Augustus,  on  the  A.  V.,  40. 

Hare,  G.  Emlen,  11,  48. 

Harrison,  Archdeacon,  7. 

Havemeyer,  J.  C,  13. 

Hebrew  criticism,  advances  in,  16. 

Grammars,  75. 

language,  22,  25,  35,  47,  50, 55,  67, 

70,  72,  73,  75,  76,  78,  152,  154, 
157,  160. 

manuscripts,  54,  57. 

philology  of  the  A.  V.,  61. 

professors  of,  15. 

restorations  of,  57. 

text,  17,  53,  64,  57. 

vowels,  62. 

Hebrew  Philology  and  Biblical 
Science,  60-71. 

Hebrew  Text  of  the  Old  Testament, 
53-59. 

Hebrews,  Epistle  to  the,  110,  139. 

Helps  for  Translating  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  at  the  Time  the  Au- 
thorized Version  was  made,  72-79. 

Henry  VIII.  and  the  Bible,  25,  27. 

Henry,  Matthew,  81. 

Hervey,  Bishop,  A.  C,  7. 

Hippopotamus  of  Job,  82. 

Hodge,  Charles,  12. 

Homer,  text  of,  86. 

Homoeoteleuton,  88. 

Hort,  F.  J.  A.,  labors  of,  9,  98. 

Houbigant,  labors  of,  57,  62. 

Humphry,  W.  (}.,  9. 

Huxley,  T.  II.,  on  A.  V.,  37. 

Inaccuracies  op    the    Authorized 

Version  op  the  Old  Testament, 
80-85. 

Inaccuracies  of    the   Authorized 


Version  in  Respect  op  Grammar 

AND  Exegesis,  99-112. 
Inaccuracy  in  the  construction,  68. 
Italian  versions,  77,  158. 
Italics  in  the  Bible,  17,  18,  157-165. 
Italics  in  the  English  Bible,  157- 

165. 
Italics,  errors  caused  by,  162. 

felicitous  use  of,  163. 

origin  of,  157. 

revision  of  the,  164. 

superfluous  use  of,  159. 

James  I.,  style  of  time  of,  38. 
version  of;  see  Authorized  Ver- 
sion, 
Jebb,  Canon,  8. 

Jerome, versions  of,  52,  65,  74, 158,174. 
Jerusalem,  Syriac  MS.  of,  96. 
Jessup,  M.  K.,  13. 
Jews,  criticism  of,  57. 

persecution  of,  55. 

schools  of,  54. 

Job,  day  of  his  birth,  81. 

English  version  of,  81. 

Hippopotamus  of,  82. 

War  horse  of,  82. 

John,  style  of,  140. 

Josephus  on  Old  Testament  text,  65. 

Juda,  Leo,  25. 

Junius,  version  of,  158. 

Kay,  W.,  8, 

Kendrick,  A.  C,  12,  99. 
Kennedy,  Canon,  9. 
Kennicott,  labors  of,  57,  62. 
Kilbye,  Dr.  R.,  81. 

King  James's  version:   see  Author- 
ized Version. 
Kraufh,  Charles  P.,  11,22. 

Lachiuan,  labors  of,  97,  98. 
Language,  American,  117. 

Arabic,  61,  76. 

English,  34,  36,  38,  115, 127, 143, 

144-150,  160,  171. 


GENERAL   INDEX. 


185 


Language,  Ethiopic,  61. 

Germau,  127. 

of  the  A.  A.  v.,  17. 

Syriac,  61,  76, 

Languages,  changes   in,  44,  49,  134, 
173. 

Semitic,  73,  76. 

Latin  authors,  93. 

manuscripts,  96. 

versions,  22,  25,  26,  27,  77, 174. 

Leathes,  Stanley,  8. 
Lectionaries,  MSS.  of,  96. 
Lee,  Archdeacon,  9. 

Bishop,  12,  170. 

Lewis,  Tayler,  11. 

Lightfoot,  Bishop,  labors  of,  9,  98. 

on  the  A.  V.,  47.  " 

Llandaflf,  Bishop  of,  7. 

London  Polyglot  of  1657,  62. 

Lord's  Prayer,  89. 

Lowth,  Bishop,  labors  of,  41,  57. 

Lumby,  John  R.,  8. 

Luther,  version  of,  23,  24,  25,  77. 

Macaulay,  Lord,  on  A.  V.,  37. 
MacGill,  Professor,  8. 
Maidstone,  Archdeacon  of,  7. 
Manuscripts : 

Alexandrian,  74,  95. 

Arabic,  96. 

Armenian,  96. 

Cambridge,  95. 

Clermont,  93. 

Coptic,  96. 

Curetonian,  96. 

Cursive,  96. 

Egyptian,  96. 

Ephraem,  95. 

Gothic,  96. 

Greek,  17,  45,  49,  54,  86,  93-98. 

Hebrew,  54,  57. 

Jerusalem,  96. 

Lectionaries,  96. 

Memphitic,  96. 

Sahidic,  96. 

Sinaitic,  54,  74,  95. 

16* 


Manuscripts ; 

Slavonic,  96. 

Syriac,  96. 

Thebaic,  96. 

Uncial,  17,  95. 

Vatican,  54,  95. 

Marginal  readings,  54. 

Mark,  style  of,  140. 

Marsh,  George  P.,  38. 

Masoretic  text,  17,  54,  62,  73,  167. 

Masorites,  54. 

Matthew,  Thomas,  Bible  of,  26,  32,  39. 

Mead,  Charles  M.,  11. 

Memphitic  MS.,  96. 

Merivale,  Dean,  10. 

Metrical  arrangement,  18. 

Mill,  labors  of,  97. 

Milligan,  William,  10. 

Moberly,  Bishop,  9. 

Montanus.  Arias,  157. 

Moulton,  W.  F.,  10. 

Munster,  S.,  version  of,  26,  157. 

Names,  proper,  changes  in,  151. 

harmonizing  of,  155. 

inconsistencies  in,  152. 

of  the  Bible,  151-156. 

Nebuchadnezzar,  dream  of,  82. 
New  Testament : 

manuscripts  of,  17,  45,  49,  54,  86, 

93-98. 

Rheims,  29. 

text  of,  17,  57,  86-98. 

various  readings  of,  56,  91. 

New  Testament  Text,  86-98. 
Newman,  Francis  W.,  on  A.  V.,  37. 
Newman,  John  H.,  10. 

on  A.  v.,  37. 

Newth,  S.,  10. 
Nile  River,  63. 
Norton,  Andrews,  on  A.  V.,  91. 

Obsolete  significations,  145. 

words,  149. 

Old  Testament  text,  55,  56,  57. 
various  readings  of,  56. 


186 


ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE   REVISION. 


Older  English  and  the  Authorized 

Versions,  22-36. 
Ollivant,  Bishop  A.,  7. 
Origen,  labors  of,  44,  74,  157,  158. 

polyglot  of,  44. 

Osgood,  Howard,  11,  53. 
Oxford  University  Press,  19. 

Packard,  Joseph,  11,  80. 

Pages,  headings  of,  17,  18. 

Pagninus,  version  of,  158. 

Palestina,  63. 

Palmer,  Edwin,  10. 

Paper,  invention  of,  23. 

Paragraphs,  17. 

Paragraphs,  Chapters,  and  Verses 

OF  THE  Bible,  166-169. 
Parallelism,  79,  167. 
Paris,  Polyglot  of  1645,  62,  75. 
Parker,  Archbishop,  29. 
Participle  aorist,  107. 
Particles,  errors  of,  in  A.  V.,  104. 
Paul,  style  of,  141. 
Pauline  Epistles,  93,  95,  96. 
Pentateuch,  Samaritan,  76. 
Pcrowne,  Dean,  8. 
Persian  version,  75. 
Peshito  version,  44,  96. 
Philodemus,  fragments  of,  95. 
Philology,  advances  in,  60,  76. 

Hebrew,  60-71. 

Philoxenian,  Syriac  MS.,  96. 

Pinsker,  labors  of,  67. 

Plato,  text  of,  86. 

Plumptre,  Edward  H.,  8. 

Pococke,  labors  of,  76. 

Poetical  books  of  Old  Testament,  79, 

167,  169. 
Polyglot  Bibles : 

Antwerp,  74,  158. 

Complutensian,  93,  94. 

London,  1657,  62. 

Origen's,  44. 

Paris,  1645,  62,  76. 

Potter,  Henry  C,  13. 
Potter,  Howard,  13. 


Prepositions,  errors  of  in  A.  V.,  103. 

Printing,  invention  of,  23. 

Proper  Names  of  the  Bible,  151- 

156. 
Prose  of  the  Bible,  arrangement  of,  18. 
Provincialisms,  118. 
Psalms,  Jerome's  version  of,  74. 
Publication  of  A.  A.  Version,  19,  20. 
Punctuation  of  the  Bible,  17. 
Puritans  and  the  Bible,  30. 
Pusey,  Edward  B.,  10. 

Rabbinical  Commentaries,  53,  61,  62, 
76,  78. 

Raleigh,  style  of,  38. 

Readings,  various,  46,  56,  86,  93,  124. 

Reasons  for  a  New  Revision  op  the 
Scriptures  in  English,  43-47. 

Renderings,  erroneous:  see  Author- 
ized Version. 

Restorations  of  Hebrew,  57. 

Revelation,  MSS.  of,  96. 

Revision,  Anglo-American : 

auspices  of,  20,  21,  41,  70,  72,  73, 

94, 172. 

demand  for,  43. 

difficulties  of,  175. 

materials  for,  46,  94-98. 

objections  to,  170. 

origin  of,  14,  178. 

principles  of,  16,  41. 

progress  of,  19. 

prospects  of,  21,  97. 

publication  of,  19,  20. 

reasons  for,  43-47,  170-180. 

Trench  on,  174. 

"  Revision  of  the  Hebrew  Text,"  by 
Davidson,  56. 

Revision  of  the  Scriptures,  170-180. 

Revision    op    the    Scriptures    in 
English,  4.3-47. 

Revisionists,  duty  of  the,  70. 

Reynolds,  John,  labors  of,  33,  72. 

suggests  the  A.  V.,  30. 

Rhcims,  New  Testament  of,  29. 
Riddle,  Matthew  B.,  12,  126. 


GENERAL   INDEX. 


187 


Roberts,  Alexander,  10. 

Rogers,  John,  version  of,  26,  28,  32,  39. 

Rose,  Henry  John,  8. 

Roye  assists  Tyndale,  (?)  24. 

Ruskin,  John,  on  A.  V.,  37. 

Sahidic  manuscript,  96. 

Samaria,  woe  to,  84. 

Samaritan  version,  75. 

Saxon  version,  22. 

Sayce,  A.  H.,  8. 

SchaflF,  Philip,  11,  12,  14. 

Schultens,  Albert,  labors  of,  61,  76. 

Scott,  Dean,  9. 

Scrivener,  Fred.  H.  A.,  10,  98. 

Selden,  John,  Table  Talk  of,  77. 

Selwyn,  William,  8. 

Semitic  languages,  73,  76. 

Septuagint,  44,  57,  58,  74,  75,  157. 

Shakspeare,  style  of,  38. 

Shepard,  Elliott  F.,  13. 

Short,  Charles,  12. 

Sinaitic  manuscript,  54,  74,  95. 

Slavonic  manuscript,  96. 

Smith,  George  V.,  10. 

Smith,  Henry  B.,  12. 

Smith,  Robert  P.,  7. 

Smith,  Roswell,  13. 

Smith,  Wm.  R.,  8. 

Solomon,  horses  of,  83. 

Sophocles,  manuscripts  of,  95. 

Spanish  versions,  77,  158. 

Spelling,  changes  in,  144,  149. 

Stanley,  Dean,  9. 

Stephens,  Robert,  Greek  Testaments 

of,  28,  93,  94. 
Storrs,  Richard  S.,  13. 
Stowe,  Calvin  E.,  11. 
Strack,  labors  of,  57. 
Strong,  James,  11,  166. 
Style,  Hare  on,  40. 
Swift  on  A.  v.,  37. 
Symmachus,  version  of,  44,  74. 
Syriac  language,  61,  76. 

manuscripts,  96. 

version,  44,  62,  75,  76. 


Talmud,  collection  of,  54. 

criticism  of,  57,  58. 

Talmudists,  rules  of,  54,  55. 
Targums  and  A.  V.,  75. 
Taverner,  Bible  of,  27. 
Taylor,  Andrew  L.,  13. 
Tenses,  Greek,  127. 

of  A.  v.,  105. 

Thayer,  J.  Henry,  12,  133. 

Thebaic  manuscript,  96. 

Theodotion,  version  of,  44,  74. 

Thirlwall,  Bishop,  8. 

Thomas  of  Harkel,  revision  of,  96. 

Three  Heavenly  Witnesses,  89. 

Thucydides,  text  of,  86. 

Tischendorf,  labors  of,  74,  97,  98. 

Tracy,  Charle#,  13. 

Translations :  see  Versions. 

Translator,  duty  of,  58. 

Tregelles,  S.  P.,  labors  of,  10,  97,  98. 

Tremellius,  version  of,  158. 

Trench,  Archbishop,  9,  174-177. 

Trevor,  John  B.,  13. 

Trinity,  doctrine  of,  92. 

Troutbeck,  J.,  10. 

Trite  Conservatism  in  Respect  to 

Changes  in  thr  English  and  the 

Greek  Text,  113-125. 
Tyndale's  version,  24,  25,  27,  28,  30, 

32,  39. 

Uncial  manuscripts,  17,  95. 

University  Presses,  19. 

Unavarrantable  Verbal  Differ- 
ences and  Agreements  in  the 
English  Version,  133-143. 

Valera,  Cypriano  de,  version  of,  158. 
Van  Dyck,  C.  V.  A.,  11. 
Vatican  manuscript,  54,  95. 
Vaughan,  Charles  J.,  10. 
Verbs,  errors  in,  105. 
Verses  of  the  Bible,  28,  166. 
Versions   of   the   Bible  or  of   parts 

thereof: 
Ancient,  73. 


188 


ANGLO-AMERICAN    BIBLE    REVISION. 


Versions   of    the   Bible   or   of    parts 
thereof: 

Anglo-American,  46,  52,  9i-98. 

Aquila,  44,  74. 

Arabic,  62,  75,  96. 

Authorized:     see     Authorized 

Version. 

Bezse,  28,  93,  94,  158. 

Bomberg,  53. 

Campbell,  41. 

Chaldee,  57,  58,  62,  75. 

Conant,  82. 

Coverdale,  25,  26,  28,  32,  39, 168. 

Cranmer,  29,  32,  39. 

Diodati,  77,  158. 

Dutch,  25,  37. 

Ethiopic,  75. 

French,  77. 

German,  25,  77. 

Greek,  44. 

Italian,  77,  158. 

Jerome,  52,  55,  74,  158. 

Junius,  158. 

Latin,  22,  25,  26,  27,  77,  174. 

Lowth,  41. 

Luther,  23,  24,  25,  77. 

Munster,  S.,  26,  157. 

Pagninus,  158. 

Persian,  75. 

Pcshito,  44,  96. 

Rheiras,  29. 

Rogers,  John,  26,  28,  29,  32. 

Samaritan,  75. 

Saxon,  22. 

Spanish,  77,  158. 


Versions   of   the   Bible   or  of   parts 
thereof: 

Symmachus,  44,  74. 

Syriac,  44,  62,  75,  76. 

Theodotion,  44,  74. 

Tremellius,  158. 

Tyndale,  24,  25,  27,  28,  30,  32,  39. 

Valera,  Cypriano  de,  158. 

Various,  22,  24-36,  40,  44,  73,  77, 

96,  157,  158. 
Vulgate,  22,  27,  52,  55,  74,  75,  77, 

94,  96,  158,  174. 

Whittingham,  28. 

Wyclifte,  22,  30,  38. 

Vowels,  Hebrew,  62. 

War  horse  of  Job,  82. 

Warren,  S.  D.,  13. 

Warren,  W.  F.,  12. 

Washburn,  E.  A.,  12. 

Weir,  Professor,  8. 

Wcstcott,  Brooke  F.,  labors  of,  10,  98. 

Wetstein,  labors  of,  97,  98. 

Whitchurch,  Bible  of,  32. 

White,  Norman,  13. 

Whittingham,  version  of,  28. 

Wilberforce,  Bishop,  10. 

Winchester,  Bishop  of,  7. 

Winston,  F.  S.,  13. 

Woman  taken  in  adultery,  90,  124. 

Woolsey,  Theodore  D.,  12,  43. 

Wordsworth,  Bishop,  8,  9. 

Wright,  William,  8. 

Wright,  William  Aldis,  8. 

Wycliffe,  version  of,  22,  30,  38. 


INDEX  TO  TEXTS  CITED. 


PAGE 

Genesis  1,  generally,  167 

1:10 83 

2  : 1-3 167 

2:4 167 

4  :  23,  24 167 

5,  generally 153 

10:15,19 153 

12:6 65 

12  :  9 63 

12  :  16 148 

15  :  6 142 

17:7 50 

22:15,17,18 51 

25  :  4 153 

28  :  12 147 

36  :  24 , 67 

37,  generally 154 

37  :  3 66 

39.  generally 154 

46  :  13 153 

Exodus  2  :  11,  12 51 

9  :  31 149 

11 :  2 66 

28  :  11 145 

29:36,40 147 

30  :  13 no 

30:25,35 146 

34  :  13 65 

36:13,38 145 

37  :  29 146 

38:24 150 

liOviticus  16  :  8 65 

Numbers  5  :  13 150 

7  :  13 147 

21  :  14 64 

23:22 67 

23:23 69 

24  :  4 70 

24:17 64 


PAGE 

Numb.  26,  generally..  154 

26:23 153 

32  :  17 147 

34:5 63 

Deuteronomy  2  :  23..  152 

4:2 60 

12  :  32 60 

21:4 63 

28:27 147 

33  :  6 160 

Jusliua9  :  5 145 

11:16 63 

17:1 70 

24:33 63 

Judges  5  :  2 65 

9:46 148 

9  :  53 146 

12,  generally 154 

12:14 147 

15:8 66 

15:19 64 

16.11 150 

18:7 149 

20:26 64 

21:19 68 

Ruth  3:  15 66 

I.  Samuell:l 64 

2:3 160 

9  :5 150 

17  :  22 149 

20:40 149 

22:4 148 

27  :  10 150 

II.  Samuel  1  :  18 64 

8:1 64 

18:23 150 


PAGE 

I.King84:24 152 

10:28 83 

II.  Kings  4:  35 149 

16:10 153 

22:14 65 

I.  Chronicles 

1,  generally 153 

1:1 153 

1 :  33 153 

2,  generally 154 

3:10^. 153 

7:1 153 

29  :  11 89 

II.  Chronicles 

4  :  12 147 

9:14 145 

12:16 153 

21:20 150 

Ezra9:3 145 

9  :  12 150 

Nehemiah  13  :  26 147 

Esther  10  :  3 150 

Job3:3 81 

3:11 160 

9  :  33 145 

18:19 147 

26  :  13 65 

30  :  20,25 160 

39,  generally 82 

39:4 150 

39:24 82 

39  :  40 82 

40,  generally 82 

40:19,23 82 

41:18. 149 

189 


190 


ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION. 


PAGE 

Psalms  3  :  4,  5 

....      67 

4  •  1 

...    68 

7:13 

...    69 

10:4 

....    69 

19:3 

59,  162 

22:30 

...    69 

35  •  15  21 

....  146 

37:40 

....    67 

40-11 

....    67 

47:8 

....    68 

48:1 

....    68 

59:17 

..68,  69 

59:19 

....    69 

66:12 

....  150 

71:22 

....    65 

73:16 

....  150 

75:5 

....  160 

91:5,6 

....  160 

96:12,13 

....  168 

98:8,9 

....  168 

109  •  4 

....  163 

124:3 

....  147 

Proverbs  8  ■  12  .... 

....  150 

8:23 

145 

8:27 

....  150 

24:21 

....    81 

Eccles.  10  •  1 

....  146 

12:13 

....  163 

Song  of  Solomon 

1:14 

....  147 

2:12 

147 

4:13 

147 

7-5 

....    65 

Isaiah  3: 18 

....  147 

3:20 

66 

6:13 

....     84 

7:16 

68 

8:2 

....  153 

8:19 

148 

8:21 

145 

9:1 

....     65 

10:14 

....  148 

10:28 

....  149 

13:3 

68 

,13:21 

....     67 

13: '22 

....    67 

14:22 

....  147 

14:29,31 

63 

15:2 

61 

15:5 

61 

PAGE 

Isaialil6:13 65 

18:2 63 

19:10 66 

27  :  1 65 

28:1.3,4 84 

28:15-19 83 

28:17 84 

28  :  20 83,  84 

38:14 148 

38:18 160 

40:12....* 148 

47:8 149 

Jeremiah  1 :  15 83 

8:7 147 

10:22 149 

17  :  1 146 

24  :  2 150 

25:20 152 

38:11 145 

39:3 64 

49:31 150 

50  :  36 148 

Ezekiel3:9 146 

13:10,  18,20 66 

23:15 66 

27  :  9,    16,   19,   21, 

22 150 

27:11,17 64 

29  :  10 63 

30:6 63 

34:31 69 

Daniel  2:5 82 

2:9 83 

3:21 145 

3:28 83 

7:9 83 

Ho8ea3:l 65 

4  :  18 65 

11:12 65 

Joel  2:  24 144 

3:4 63 

Obadiah  12-14 67 

Nahum2:3 66 

2:7 04,  145 

2  :  12 145 

3:8 61 

3:  19 ll'J 


PAOK 

Hatobakuk  2  :  6, 16...    65 

3:3 67 

Zechariah  1 :  21 148 

7  :  12 146 

Malachl3:l 51 

Matthew  1:25 90,  129 

2:  2 129 

2:22 104,  130 

3:4 118 

3:5,6 130 

3  :  15 .-  161 

4:6 104 

4  :  25 118 

5  :  10 138 

5  :  12 131 

5:16,17 131 

5:22 136 

5:44 88 

5:45 132 

5:48 131 

6:1 131 

6:2,3 131 

6:10 140 

6:12 121 

6:13 89,  124 

6  :  25 150 

8  :  24 105 

9:2 105 

9:13 88 

9  :  24 129 

10:22 142 

10  :  23 121 

12:5,7 135 

14:8 147 

15  :  36 130 

16:2,3 89 

16:14 161 

17:21 89 

17  :  24 109 

18:11 89 

18:24,28 149 

19:8 106 

20:16 89 

20:23 162 

21:44 89 

22:  14 89 

23:6 150 

23  :  14 89 

23  :  a5 136 

23:44 136 

24  :  12 103 


INDEX   TO   TEXTS   CITED. 


191 


PAGE 

Matthew  24  :  21 106 

24:30 104 

25:7 150 

25  :  14 162 

25  :  28 105 

25  :  32 135 

25  :  46 141 

26  :  49 105 

27:35 89 

Mark  1 :  2 90 

1 :  27 121 

2:17 88 

4:37 105 

5  :  34 142 

6:11 89 

6:22 49 

6  :  25 149 

6:41 130 

7  :  16 89 

8:6 130 

9:22 121 

9:23 90,  121 

9:44,46 89 

10  :  52 142 

11:26 89 

12:38 139 

13:21 149 

13  :  34 162 

15:28 89 

16  :  9-20 89,  124 

IiUkel:59 106 

2:7,14 90 

3:15 161 

4:6 105 

4:44 90 

5:3,7 130 

5:32 88 

6:1 90 

6:27,28 88 

7:4 150 

7:5 101 

7:38 105 

7:41 149 

7:42 150 

7:50 142 

8:48 124,  142 

9  :  16 130 

9:55,56 89,  90 

10:41 116 

11:2 140 

11:19 90 

12:58 144,161 


PAGE 

Luke  14:  5 90 

14:10 150 

« 15:17,22 121 

16:5 160 

17:7 149 

17:36 89 

18:42 142 

19:13 150 

19:16,17 90 

20:46 139 

21:9 149 

21:19 109 

22:43,44 89 

23:15 90,  122 

23  :  17 89 

23  :  34 89,  90 

23  :  44 136 

23:46 108 

24:12 89,  161 

24:25 136 

24:40 89 

24:51 90 

Johnl:3 106 

1:4 103 

1:5 148 

1 :  14 109 

1:18 90 

1:21,25 103 

3  :  10 101 

3:13 90 

3:34 162 

4:27 102 

4  :  38 106 

5:3,4 89,124 

5  :  35 102 

6  :  39 131 

7:8 90 

7: 53  to  8: 11. 89, 90, 124 

8:6 161 

8:46 150 

8:58 136 

10:4,14 122 

11:3,5 134 

13:7 134 

13:10 135 

14:1 131 

14:14 90 

15:26 163 

20:5,11 160 

21:17 1^1 

21 :  25 89 

Acts  2:  47 142 


PAGE 

Acts  5  :  30 109 

7:42 161 

7  :  45 156 

7:59 163 

8:37 89 

9:5,  6 1 89,  94 

10  :  3 148 

10  :  29 161 

11:20 90 

13  :  18 89 

15:34 89 

16:7 90 

18  :  5 122 

19:2 109 

19  :  15 134 

20:28 90 

20:37 105 

21 :  3 108 

21:5,6,7 108 

21 :  15 116,  149 

22:10 89 

23:1 162 

23:9 122 

23:22 161 

24:6-8 89 

24:25 116. 

26  :  14 89 

26:24 141 

26  :  28 141 

27:12 154 

27:40 144 

28:8,13 149 

28:29 89 

Romans,  generally...  138 

1  :17 102 

3  :  21 102,  106 

4.  generally 14S 

4:3 143 

4:17 163 

4:19 50 

5:4 116 

5:5 106 

5:6.8 107 

5:11 138,  147 

5:12 107,  129 

5:17,19 107 

6:2,4 107 

7:4 107 

7:6 94 

7:7,8 136 

7  :  25 105 

9  :22 143 

9  :  29 155 


192 


ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION. 


PAGE 

Romans  11 :  4 161 

11:6 89 

12:1 116 

12:17 148 

14:10 90 

14:23 148 

■ 16  :  24 89 

I.  Corinthians 

■ 1  :  18 142 

. 1:19 116 

2:11 134 

4:4 48 

■ 6:20 122 

7:31 141 

^ 9  :  24 149 

9:26,27 110 

^ 10  :  9 90 

•i 10:24 150 

11  :  29 148 

" 12:4 135 

' 13.  generally 168 

13:3 90 

14:3,19,34 161 

15:12,21 106 

15  ,27,28 139 

15:41 161 

15:44 164 

15:47 90 

II.  Corinthians 

1  :  3-7 137 

1:20 123 

2:15 142 

3:3 161 

3:7 109 

4:14 90 

5:4 107 

5:14 129 

5:16 134 

5:20 104 

8:1 149 

10:6 150 

12:2 109 

GalatianH,  Kcnerally  138 

1  :  i:},  23,  24 i:',0 

2:20 104,  IW,  131 

3:6 143 

4  :5 109 

4:17 146 


PAGE 

Galatians  5  : 1 123 

5:20,23 116 

Ephesians,      gener- 
ally   138 

3:9 90 

4:1 148 

4:14 161 

5:21 91 

Philippians  3  :  14 149 

4  :  6 116,  149 

Colossians,      gener- 
ally   138 

1  :  27 91 

2:2 91 

3:13,15 91 

I.  Thessalonians 

4  :  18 148 

II.  Thessalonians 

1  :  10 146 

- —  2:5,8 , 103 

I.  Timothy  2  :  2 148 

2:9 148,  149 

3  :  13 150 

3:16 91 

5:4 147 

5  :  22 150 

- —  6:25 102 

II.  Timothy  3  :  16 163 

4:7 101 

4:14 50 


,.  109 

,.  106 

,.  V.VJ 

..  138 

,.  110 

..  106 

4:3 106,  138 


Hebrews  1  :  4. 

2:3 

2:8 

3:11 

3:16 

4:2 


—  4:4 

4  :6,7 

, 4:8 

I  7  :  18,19 


PAGE 

Hebrews  9:1 105 

9  :  12 162 

10  :  38 162,  164 

11  :  10 102 

11:17 105 

11  :  23 150 

12  :  7 123 

James  2  :  2,3 135 

2:9 150 

5:1 149 

I.  Peter  1 :  22 162 

■'  3:11 148 

3  :  14 138 

3:15 91 

3  :  20 94 

II.  Peter,  generally..  138 
1:21 162 

I.  John  2  :  19 162 

2:20 148 

2  :  23 88 

2:24 140 

5:7,8 89 

Jude,  generally 138 

11 156 

16 146 

25 91 

Revelation 

1:5 88 

1:8 91 

1:9,11 94 

2:3,20,24 94 

2  :  25 162 

3:2 91,  94 

4:2 83 

5:10,14 94 

15  :  3 94 

10:5 94 

17:6 135,  146 

17  :  7 135 

17:8,16 94 

18:2 94 

21  :  19 102 

22:1-5 167 

22:14 91,  123 

22:18,19 CQ 


THE    END. 


Date  Due 

A       t 

/ 

1 

^ 

BS188.A512 
Anglo-American  Bible  revision 

Princeton  Theological  Semmary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00059  7114 


